Nevertheless, Blavatsky has remained popular in some quarters and her work has played no small part in inspiring the New Age movement of the current fin-de-siecle. And thus HPB's "amateurish" production continues to frustrate professional students of Asia. In his article, "Fictitious Tibet: The Origin and Persistence of Rampaism," Agehananda Bharati apparently speaks for all scholars in once again attacking Blavatsky, claiming that her work culminates in the ridiculous output of The Third Eye and its sequels by "Lama Lobsang Rampa," (actually one Cyril Henry Hoskin):
Mme. Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine, a multivolume work, is such a melee of horrendous hogwash and of fertile inventions of inane esoterica, that any Buddhist and Tibetan scholar is justified to avoid mentioning it in any context. But it is precisely because serious scholars haven't mentioned this opus that it should be dealt with in a serious publication and in one whose readers are deeply concerned with the true representation of Tibetan lore. In other words, since Blavatsky's work has had signal importance in the genesis and perpetuation of a widespread, weird, fake, and fakish pseudo-Tibetica and pseudo-Buddhica, and since no Tibetologist or Buddhologist would touch her writings with a long pole… it behooves an anthropologist who works in the Buddhist and Tibetan field to do this job…
I do not doubt that in her earlier years, Blavatsky must have been a highly eclectic, voracious reader. But as with all nonscholars in the field of religious systems, she did not unmix the genuine from the phony; she obviously regarded all sources as equally valid. Not knowing any of the primary languages of the Buddhist-Hindu tradition, she had to rely on whatever had been translated. And, as an epiphenomenon to the awakening interest in oriental studies, a large number of unscholarly writings emerged, produced by people who thought, or pretended, that they could get at the meat of the newly discovered wisdom of the East by speculating about it in their own way rather than by being guided by its sources, or by seeking guidance from authentic teachers in those eastern lands.[11]
It is not quite true, as Bharati implies, that all 20th century Buddhist scholars have completely ignored Blavatsky. She continues to receive small but steady notice even up to the present, for instance in a recent study by Donald S. Lopez, Jr., (1998) Prisoners of Shangri-la – although Lopez is no more charitable in his view than Bharati.[12] He focuses almost entirely on Blavatsky's unusual theories of anthropogensis (a relatively minor part of her 16-year oeuvre) while ignoring her fairly orthodox Buddhist views on the emanation of the universe, karma, reincarnation, skandhas, nirvana, etc.
Yet not all Buddhist scholars have dismissed HPB. The French Orientalist Emile Burnouf wrote supportively of the Theosophical Society in the Reveux des Deux Mondes last century. Protesting against Theosophists' attempts to distance themselves from exoteric Buddhism plain and simple, Burnouf wrote,
This [universal brotherhood] declaration [of the Theosophical Society] is purely Buddhistic: the practical publications of the Society are either translations of Buddhist books, or original works inspired by the teaching of Buddha. Therefore the Society has a Buddhist character.[13]
Likewise, several prominent Buddhologists this century (a distinct minority) have declared that H.P.B. was an accurate transmittor of Buddhist teaching, and a small number of Buddhologists actually joined the Theosophical Society. D.T. Suzuki wrote that H.P.B. was "one who had truly attained,"[14] and praised her work The Voice of the Silence as being "true Mahayana Buddhism."[15] Likewise Lama Kazi Dawa Samdup (who in the service of W.Y. Evans-Wentz, translated The Tibetan Book of the Dead) said that H.P.B. had "…intimate acquaintance with the higher lamaistic teachings…"[16] One of the most important Buddhologists of the century, Edward Conze, was a Theosophist. Mircea Eliade, in his published journal, wrote for January 15, 1964,
yesterday and today, almost the whole time with Ed. Conze. He gave two lectures on Buddhism-amusing and extremely well attended. Long conversations between us. I learned that he was, and still is, a theosophist: he admires The Secret Doctrine, and believes that Mme. Blavatsky was the reincarnation of Tsonkapa.[17]
The reasons for this great divergence of opinion on H.P. Blavatsky must be inquired into.
If Blavatsky were only championed by a small group of devotees, and ridiculed by everyone else, one could conclude that she was merely a cult leader. But Bharati is right in at least one respect, namely that "Blavatsky's work has had signal importance" on Western interpretations of Eastern thought, and to some degree on Eastern people's interpretation of themselves. Perhaps it is Blavatsky's Theosophical influence on the Eastern hemisphere which is least familiar to Western scholars. During Blavatsky's lifetime, over 125 branches of the Theosophical Society sprang up in India, more than the total branches of the T.S. in all other countries combined. For a time, the Theosophical Society joined forces with the Arya Samaj and other native Hindu and Buddhist revival movements, while the Indian National Congress, later to be so instrumental in gaining India's independence, was formed and run largely by British Theosophists, especially Allan O. Hume.[18] S. Radhakrishnan, one of India's leading philosophical and political figures this century, writes,
When, with all kinds of political failures and economic breakdowns we were suspecting the values and vitality of our culture, when everything round about us and secular education happened to discredit the value of Indian culture, the Theosophical Movement rendered great service by vindicating those values and ideas. The influence of the Theosophical Movement on general Indian society is incalculable.[19]
In 1975, for the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Theosophical Society, the Indian government commissioned a stamp with the distinctive logo and the motto of the Theosophical Society, "There is no religion higher than truth."
In Sri Lanka the Theosophical impact was even more profound. To the present day, February 17th is a Sri Lankan holiday, honoring the birthday of the first President of the Theosophical Society, Henry S. Olcott, champion of Buddhism and foe of Christianity. When Olcott and Blavatsky arrived in Sri Lanka in 1880, Christian missionaries had completely dominated the island, and the education of youth was almost entirely in the hands of Christian schools-only two Buddhist schools existed. By 1900, due to the effective ideological and financial campaigns of the Theosophists, over 200 Buddhist-run schools were in operation, as well as a Buddhist Theosophical Society with many branches busily engaged in printing newspapers and administering land.[20] Theosophists cannot be held responsible for the entire revival of Buddhism in Sri Lanka, as Richard Gombrich rightly remarks; the ground had been well-prepared by the advent of widespread literacy, the rise of a middle class, and the inculcation in learned Sri Lankans of Protestant values.[21] Nevertheless, it is clear that the Theosophical impact was far-reaching.[22]
11
Agehananda Bharati, "Fictitious Tibet: The Origin and Persistence of Rampaism,"
12
Lopez,
17
Quoted by Cranston,
18
Louis Fischer,
19
Quoted by Cranston,
22
Too far-reaching, according to Gananath Obeyesekere, who blames Theosophists not only for their distorted and modernist 'Protestant Buddhism' but also for the violent forms Buddhist nationalism has taken in Sri Lanka this century. See his "Buddhism and Conscience,"