But in light of the extensive additions to, and revisions in, Western Buddhology over the past century, it is high time for a re-examination of Blavatsky and Buddhism. Buddhist scholars today (one assumes) no longer share Victorian sensibilities, while having the additional advantage of a far more comprehensive access to native Buddhist traditions, especially in Tibet. HPB need no longer be judged on the basis of her personality, her anti-Christian zeal, or the danger her activities present to colonialism. Controversial and flamboyant she was, no doubt: the subject of over 30 positive and negative biographies and countless topical studies (the latter mostly written by Theosophists). Yet the focus of all of these works has been in investigating her supposed psychic powers; chronicling her cultural legacy; producing commentaries to her works; or attacking or defending Theosophy as a valid spiritual path. No modern study has yet evaluated H.P. Blavatsky's works purely on the basis of their merit as accurate or inaccurate representations of Buddhism, judged by the teachings of bona fide Buddhists themselves, in native and now translated primary documents. Specifically, while one very useful volume gathers up Blavatsky's statements about Buddhism[44], no scholar has yet attempted a systematic study of H.P.B.'s literary oeuvre and compared it to undisputed Buddhist doctrine contained in the Pali, Sanskrit, and Tibetan Sutras, Shastras and Tantras. This paper purposes, for the first time, to undertake such a systematic investigation.
The method of this study is to take time as an organizing principle. H.P. Blavatsky claimed to be imparting an ancient, esoteric wisdom unavailable to the scholars of the West, or even to most seekers in the East. Her opponents, many of them very eminent Orientalists, accused her of appropriating secondary literature on Buddhism, available in translation (since allegedly HPB knew no canonical languages). One line of defense against this criticism, taken by Theosophists and sometimes by Blavatsky herself, was to point to the magnitude of the Theosophical teachings, their consistency and internal coherence, as demonstrating their validity. Well aware of the criticisms scholars would level at her teachings, Blavatsky attempted to document her "Wisdom Tradition" by marshalling thousands of supportive statements from the literature of the ancient world.
One of the greatest, and, withal, the most serious objection to the correctness and reliability of the whole work [her Secret Doctrine] will be the preliminary STANZAS: "How can the statements contained in them be verified?" True, if a great portion of the Sanskrit, Chinese, and Mongolian works quoted in the present volumes are known to some Orientalists, the chief work - that one from which the Stanzas are given - is not in the possession of European Libraries. The Book of Dzyan (or "Dzan") is utterly unknown to our Philologists, or at any rate was never heard of by them under its present name. This is, of course, a great drawback to those who follow the methods of research prescribed by official science; but to the students of Occultism, and to every genuine Occultist, this will be of little moment. The main body of the Doctrines given is found scattered throughout hundreds and thousands of Sanskrit MSS., some already translated-disfigured in their interpretation, as usual,-others still awaiting their turn. Every scholar, therefore, has an opportunity of verifying the statements herein made, and of checking most of the quotations.[45]
What may not have occurred to Blavatsky, however, is that using tiny fragments to point to the existence of a long-broken whole is a purely subjective method. The veracity of her individual and scattered quotations does little to objectively demonstrate the overarching hermeneutic she puts forward. What is "coherent" and indicative of a perennial philosophy to a Theosophist has obviously been considered "a melee of horrendous hogwash" by outsiders.
The only conceivable manner of adjuticating the dispute is to see what was available to HPB on Buddhism in any Western language up to and including the time of Blavatsky's death, and then closely comparing those presentations of Buddhism to HPB's work. Whatever in Blavatsky's writings cannot be traced to a Western source (particularly in English, French and Russian - languages she spoke fluently) must then be collated and compared to what is now known of Buddhism from its primary source documents and living traditions. This two step method allows the researcher access to what in Blavatsky was purely derivative, and what unique; then, of what was unique - what may now appear to be justifiable Buddhist doctrine and what may be unverifiable assetion.
It is important to note that just because a work was published in any Western language does not prove that HPB had access to it. One might justifiably argue that simply because Blavatsky refers to a Buddhist MSS., which had also been published in Western translation, there is no a priori reason to assume she had no access to a native source. However, such a line of argument (and the near impossibility of learning where HPB lived in what year, and what sources were available to her in that location or through correspondence) suffers by comparison to a higher line of reasoning. Any Buddhist text or doctrine which Blavatsky (or her alleged teachers in their letters) quotes, which was not available in any Western recension, is de facto proof that HPB was drawing either on an original language source (oral or written), or her own imagination. In most cases it should not be terribly difficult to distinguish the former from the latter in light of current knowledge.
To this end, a nearly comprehensive chronological bibliography has been drawn up, listing all books and articles written about Buddhism in every Western language, year by year from 1667 to 1891, the date of Blavatsky's death. Because of the overwhelming mass of data, only the most important works (especially translations from original languages) have been collated and attached to this study as Appendix I. Here one may see when important Sutras were translated, when dictionaries for Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese became available, what travellers had remarked on lands HPB claimed to have visited, and what theories and predilections were prevalent before and during the time HPB wrote. With these in sight, Blavatsky's contributions will be easier to recognize.
The "Mahatma Letters," whose six volumes are kept in the permanent collection of the British Museum, deserve special mention, because they have been the nucleus of many a controversy surrounding Blavatsky.[46] They were written largely to the British editor of the Allahabad Pioneer, A.P. Sinnett, from 1880 to 1884, and contain essential Theosophical teachings as well as mundane comments on individuals, the Theophical Society, and various currents in the world at large. Dozens of authors have attempted to demonstrate that these letters were or were not written by Blavatsky herself, and to settle whether the letters did or did not appear through "occult" agency (appearing at their destinations by dropping from the ceiling, or materializing within books or other objects, etc. as well as by ordinary post).[47] The Mahatma Letters are a primary source for our study of Blavatsky and Buddhism, because many of HPB's unusual doctrines and vocabulary, which are expounded upon in publication in 1888 with her Secret Doctrine, are found years earlier in these private letters. Yet it does not matter, for our current purposes, who wrote the Mahatma Letters, for the Buddhistic teachings contained therein will be held up to the same methodological scrutiny as those works which are undoubtedly Madame's.
44
Spierenberg,
46
Barker, A.T., ed.
47
Accusers and defenders include Coulomb, Emma.