Firstly, what may be the books of Kiu-Te? Blavatsky writes,
The Book of Dzyan – from the Sanskrit word "Dhyan" (mystic meditation)-is the first volume of the Commentaries upon the seven secret folios of Kiu-Te, and a Glossary of the public works of the same name. Thirty-five volumes of Kiu-Te for exoteric purposes and the use of the laymen may be found in the possession of the Tibetan Gelugpa Lamas, in the library of any monastery; and also the fourteen books of Commentaries and Annotations on the same by the initiated Teachers.
Strictly speaking, those thirty-five books ought to be termed "The Popularised Version" of the Secret Doctrine, full of myths, blinds and errors; the fourteen volumes of Commentaries, on the other hand - with their translations, annotations, and an ample glossary of Occult terms, worked out from one small archaic folio, the Book of the Secret Wisdom of the World – contain a digest of all the Occult Sciences. These, it appears, are kept secret and apart, in the charge of the Teshu Lama of Tji-gad-je [Shigatse]. The Books of Kiu-Te are comparatively modern, having been edited within the last millenium, whereas, the earliest volumes of the Commentaries are of untold antiquity, some fragments of the original cylinders having been preserved. With the exception that they explain and correct some of the too fabulous, and to every appearance, grossly-exaggerated accounts in the Books of Kiu-Te - properly so-called - the Commentaries have little to do with these.[101]
Blavatsky then refers to the Catholic monk Della Penna's dismissive account of the Books of Kiu-Te, an early 18th century account that was unpublished until Markham's 1876 book, Narratives of the Mission of George Bogle to Tibet:
…the thirty-six volumes of the law Khiute gives precepts for practising magic, and other foul matters of luxury and lust… I have not read this infamous and filthy law of Khiute, so as not to stain my mind, and because it is unnecessary. For to confute it one must know in the abstract of what it treats, and there is little good or indifferent that is not mixed up with much more witchcraft, magic incantations, and obscenity. For the monks of this unworthy law it is enough that they learn by heart twenty-five papers to attain the doctor's degree: but for the monks of the Dote to become doctors they must study philosophy for twelve years, and for six months in every year they have daily discussions. After the twelve years have passed they are examined and attain their doctorship. This law of Khiute is the shortest road to holiness, but it is uncertain and rough, because those who observe well the precepts of this law, and practise that which it teaches, can become saint in one life without any other transmigrations, but if they do not observe them well they increase their transmigrations, and very often to to the hell Narme…
It will be obvious to any scholar barely familiar with the Tibetan Canon, of course, that the two divisions here discussed are nothing other than the rGyud-sde (Tantras) and mDo-sde (Sutras) of the Canon called bKa'-'gyur (Kanjur).[102] Della Penna's spelling of Khiute (not his sentiment) is the obvious influence on HPB's "Books of of Kiu-te," which is actually a quite good phonetic rendering of rGyud-sde. Blavatsky is apparently not influenced by Schlagintweit, who spells it Gyut (and gives in the appendix the accurate spelling) nor is Blavatsky drawing, at least for spelling, from Csoma de Koros' 1836 "Analysis of the… Kah-Gyur" (in the journal, Asiatic Researches) where he lists each of the major sections of the Buddhist canon, and gives short abstracts of each treatise in them.
Blavatsky, then, is interested in the rGyud-sde, but not just Buddhist Tantra in general. In particular she refers to "seven secret folios of Kiu-Te… and also the fourteen books of Commentaries and Annotations on the same by the initiated Teachers." This would appear more difficult to validate. But David Reigle in his Books of Kiu-Te points out that there are in fact Tibetan traditions of secret, lengthy Tantric texts: Tibetan scholar Bu-ston (1290-1364) refers to expanded Tantric texts in his History of Buddhism (Chos-byung), while the colophon of the Vimalaprabha refers to itself as a commentary on the Laghu ("abridged") Kalachakra Tantra. Reigle then quotes D.L. Snellgrove's important work, The Hevajra Tantra: A Critical Study, where Snellgrove discusses a commentary on the Hevajra Tantra by one Bodhisattva Vajragarbha. In this commentary (the Hevajrapinsharthashika) Vajragarbha quotes from a lost longer version of the Mula ("Root") Hevajra Tantra. D.L. Snellgrove states,
The actual passages that he quotes, come from no normal tantra; they are always explanatory and doctrinal, and it is to this work [the Mula Tantra] that he frequently refers when he is seeking the figurative meaning of a passage.[103]
Vajragarbha in his Shika states that
From this short [known] version just as it is taught one learns the obvious meaning (neyartha); the real meaning (nitartha) is to be learned form the Mula Tantra.
Clearly then, Tibetan tradition itself accepts that its "published" canonical Tantras may not be the definitive, final (nitartha) exposition of their teachings. Esoteric as the rGyud-sde (Tantras) may be, even more esoteric commentaries and/or root texts appear to have once been known, and are now lost, hidden, or unknown. Indeed, to any one who has actually read even a small portion of a Tantric text, it is clear that any meaning is inscrutable without the aid of a commentary or oral explanation by a qualified teacher. The Tantric texts are full of symbolism, using numbers, colors, various ritual implements and bodily substances in complex visualizations. At times the symbolism is quite sexual, giving rise to the poor Catholic monk's horror of "this infamous and filthy law of Khiute."
But what is the significance of all this? So there really are a set of secret books, with the right number of folios, called the rGyud-sde, referred to constantly by Blavatsky as the source of her "Stanzas of Dzyan" which form the "root text" of her two volume Secret Doctrine. So there really appears to be a Tibetan tradition of secret Tantric commentaries known only to exalted beings like Bodhisattva Vajragarbha. Perhaps Blavatsky heard all this second-hand as it were and conjured up her "Stanzas of Dzyan" from her Buddhist-trained imagination?
Blavatsky gives a specific provenance for her Stanzas of Dzyan, saying that they are from "the first volume of the Commentaries upon the seven secret folios of Kiu-Te." If the 'secret Commentaries' follow the order of the 'published' Tantra commentaries in the bsTan'gyur (Tanjur) Canon - which is to be expected - we must look to the first books of the rGyud-sde (Kiu-Te) section. The first five volumes, containing 55 treatises, deal with the Kalachakra Tantra, made so popular these days by the many public initiations given by the current Dalai Lama. It is important to further note that Blavatsky's "Stanzas of Dzyan" deal exclusively with cosmogenesis and anthropogenesis, which is also the entire subject matter of the first section of the Kalachakra Tantra. No other Tantric texts place emphasis on cosmology. Furthermore, as David Reigle notes,
102
The identification of Blavatsky's "Books of Kiu-te" as the Tantra section of the Tibetan Canon was made independently by two scholars. Henk Spierenberg does this in his work