Spiritual Streams that Proceed from the Great Masters of Wisdom

The world is always flowed through by spiritual streams that proceed from the great Masters of Wisdom and of the Harmony of Feelings. The Masters continuously pour streams of love and wisdom over humanity, but men's souls aren't always ready and open to receive them. 

But meditation words are magic words that open soul portals so that divine life can move in. That's why one shouldn't speculate with one's intellect about meditation words, but should open the soul for forces that are higher than merely intellectual ones. If one speculates about them with one's intellect then only forces that are already in one become active. But higher forces are supposed to awaken. One shouldn't want to solve riddles in one's meditation words, one should let them solve riddles, for they're much wiser than the intellect can ever be. That's why one should let them work on one and take in what they permit to flow into one's soul, let them live completely in one's soul.

Meditation words were born from the laws of the spiritual world and didn't arise through speculation. Something special lives in every vowel. Each of the vowels has a different sound value. And just as the soul feels the effect of sounds, so it should devote itself to the pictures that the words mediate to it. In meditation one should try to think as concretely as possible, and to be as far away as possible from abstract ideation.

Let's take a meditation formula that most of you know. In the first line:

"In pure rays of light"

one can imagine something like palely gleaming moonlight that represents the soft light of the Godhead that flows through creation. This mental image should live quite clearly and intimately in the soul at the words:

"In pure rays of light
Gleams the Godhead of the world."

Then come the lines:

"In pure love to all beings
Radiates the godliness of my soul."

Now one tries to permeate soft moonlight completely with one's love, to pour it into oneself, so that the mild light begins to radiate through the warmth of one's love, and in the flood of rays one feels the Godhead glowing in one's soul. In the following words:

"I rest in the Godhead of the world,"

one tries to imagine that divine-spirit is flowing all around one. One can feel as if one were in a lukewarm bath, entirely embedded in divine substance that envelops one's whole being like a mild bath.

"I will find myself
In the Godhead of the world"

With these words one can think of a distant light tower that radiates over to one, and can permeate oneself with the feeling that one will find one's own self in divine things.

But it's not only the pictures that live in the soul during meditation that draw us towards the divine and open the soul's portals. A deep wisdom and a high divine life has also been placed into the vowels. It makes a difference whether this or that vowel resounds in the soul. Let's take the vowel i. This always expresses a centralizing, a striving toward the center. The a(h) means something quite different. It's an expression of an inner worship of the divine. The i strives towards the center of the universe, whereas the a(h) remains distant and bows before the Holiest in devotion. So if we look at our formula:

"In den reinen Strahlen des Lichtes"

in the first i the soul strives towards the divine center, in a(h) it retreats devotedly, and in the second i it hurries towards the divine again. In the second line we have the ae:

"Erglaenzt die Gottheit der Welt."

The ae represents a weakened ah. The worshipful devotion of the ah changes in ae to shy reverence. In holy, shy reverence a man doesn't dare to approach God. But in the following o the soul hurries to embrace the divine completely with sacred love and intimacy. The oalways expresses an embracing that is full of love. The following line:

"In der reinen Liebe zu allen Wesen,"

the i again leads the soul directly into the divine center. Then in ah of-

"Erstrahlt die Goettlichkeit meiner Seele,"

the soul again becomes devotion completely. And just as the shy reverence of ae in the second line changed into an intimate embracing of the divine, so in the fourth line the full, warm worshipping of the ah weakens into a shy wanting to embrace that hardly dares to touch the Godhead in oe. In the fifth line,

"Ich ruhe in der Gottheit der Welt"

the u predominates. This always expresses a resting, a being embedded. Now the soul has been fused with the divine in blessed quiet. In the last two lines,

"Ich werde mich selbst finden
In der Gottheit der Welt,"

the soul is led (i) ever deeper into the center of the world.

This is just one way of understanding the formula, and one small part of the deep wisdom that rests in it. It would be confusing if I wanted to tell you all the deep secrets that are hidden in it. There's no letter and no sign in it that doesn't have a deep, deep meaning. That's the way the divine word of creation resounded when it once let the universe arise. You once heard it sounding, but your souls weren't aware of it yet. At that time you descended from the spirit, and you'll go back there in full consciousness. Born out of the spirit, living in an earthly body, you'll return to the divine spirit of the world through the power of the spirit.

-Rudolf Steiner 

https://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA266/English/UNK1998/19071205e01.html

The Credo- Rudolf Steiner

This document gives a clear picture of just how immersed was Steiner in the inner life, in the quest for the divine. Some years after his death, the archives published a remarkable document from Steiner’s early years, which was found in 1944. He had titled it “Credo” which in this context means, “What I believe”. It should be clearly kept in mind that this document, in its youthful idealism and simplicity of assertions, does not represent how the mature age Steiner would speak to his students. It is of value in that it presents a very clear statement about his view of spirituality and service to the divine, as the purpose of life. He was only 27 yrs old when he wrote this,


The “Creed”:

The realm of the Idea1 is the origin and sustaining principle of all Existence. In it is never-ending harmony and joyous tranquillity. Any part of Creation which this realm did not illumine, would be something dead and without being, and would have no part of the life of the universe. Only that which derives its existence from the {archetypal} Idea, has significance on the cosmic Tree, from which all things are created.2

The Idea is self-evident Spirit, Spirit sufficient unto itself, in itself, with itself. The individual must have the Spirit indwelling, otherwise it falls away, like a dry leaf from the tree, and would have been, anyway, whilst there, without purpose.

Now, the human Being, when it has become fully conscious {an adult}, feels and knows itself as a separate Being. It also has implanted within its being, the yearning for the Idea. This yearning drives it on, to overcome the separateness, and to let the Spirit come into life within his or her being, so that the soul may become like the Spirit.

Everything which is egotistic, everything which forms the person into this definite, separated-self, must be cast away, this is what the human being must strip away, for this it is, which obscures the light of the Spirit. That which derives from sensual lust, instinctive drives and passions, is desired only by this egotistic self. Therefore, the human being must destroy this selfish will in itself. Instead of seeking that which he or she as a separate being wants, the human being should want that which the Spirit, the Idea, in him wills and seeks. Guide the “Separate-Being” towards this goal, hearken to the voice of the Idea within you for that alone is divine !

What one wants as a separate-being is, within the circumference of the universe, worthless. It is a worthless point, disappearing within the flow of Time. What one wills “in the Spirit”, as it were, that is in the centre, for then, the central Light of the Universe comes into being within us: such a deed is not subject to the flow of Time.

When someone acts as an isolated individual, they remove their ‘self’ from the closed chain of cosmic activity, they are separated away from this. When a human being acts ‘in the Spirit’, she or he then lives ever more into the universal processes of the Cosmos. Destroying all self-centredness, this is the foundation of the higher life. For whoever lets this Selfhood die, shall find an eternal existence. That which is mortal in us in our separate-self.

This is the true meaning of these words of Goethe, “Whosoever does not die before death, shall perish at death”. This means, whoever does not make an end to egotism during the earthly life, shall not have a part of the universal life, which is immortal. For such a person never existed within this greater Life, and had no real existence.

1 This is the famous realm of archetypal Thoughts, of Plato and early esoteric wisdom.2 This unusual phrase refers to a very effective and evocative metaphor, deeply linked to the older Germanic and Celtic worldview; the “Welt Esche” or cosmic Ash tree, from which all the realms in the cosmos have their origin.

There are four fields of human activity in which the human Being deadens all egotism and fully dedicates himself or herself to the Spirit. These are: Knowledge, Art, Religion and loving dedication to an individual in Spirit. Whoever does not live in at least one of these four activities, does not really live at all. Knowledge is devotion to the universe, in Thought; Art is devotion to the universe in sense-perception; Religion is devotion to the world – through the life of Feeling; dedicated Love is devotion with all of ones’ spiritual forces, being directed towards something that appears to one as a worthy member of the Cosmos.

Knowledge is the most spiritualized form of selfless devotion, Love the most beautiful form. For love is truly a heavenly radiance shining into the life of daily existence. Devout, truly spiritual Love ennobles the innermost fibre of our being, it refines and uplifts everything that lives in us. This pure, devout love transforms the entire soul-life into something that is akin to the Universal-Spirit. To love in this most exalted sense means to bear the breath of the Heavens into that realm where there is usually to be found only the most detestable egotism and mindless lust.

One must first know something of the holiness of Love, before one can speak about Spirituality (piety). If a person has made the journey out of the separated condition, through one of these four activities, and merged into the divine life of the Idea (Spirit), then that person has attained to that, for which a seed of yearning was placed in his or her heart: the union with the Spirit. For this is the true destination of the human. Whoever who lives in the Spirit is free, for they have extricated themself from everything of secondary significance. Nothing compels him or her to act, except a coercion which he gladly undertakes, for such a person has recognized the task at hand as the highest duty of all.

Let truth be lived: lose yourself in order to find yourself again within the Cosmic-Spirit !

R. Steiner, ca. l888 (27 years old)

Translated by Dr. Adrian Anderson

Who are the Dugpas?

"Dugpa"- a Tibetan term for a sorcerer or “Brother of the Shadow.” It literally means “Red Caps,” a Tibetan Buddhist sect whose practices have been adulterated with the native Bon religion prior to the 14th century. According to Helena P. Blavatsky, when Tsong-ka-pa reformed Buddhism, strict rules were imposed on the Gelukpas or the “Yellow Caps.” This resulted in the split of the two sects, and the Dugpas gave themselves over “more than ever to sorcery, immorality, and drunkenness” (Theos. Glossary).

Dugpas therefore are human beings, and not demons or elementals. Blavatsky wrote that they were found more in Western Tibet and Bhutan. They perform their rites during the New Moon period, when certain benign influences are at their lowest. 

The Mahatma stated that Adepts also keep dugpas (or ex-dugpas) to test candidates for discipleship, “to do our scavengers’ work, and to draw out the latent vices — if there be any” (ML, p. 232) “with the sole object of drawing out the whole inner nature of the chela, most of the nooks and corners of which would remain dark and concealed for ever, were not an opportunity afforded to test each of these corners in turn” (ML, p. 223). One such probationer tested was Edmond FERN, who failed and was later expelled from the Theosophical Society.

Blavatsky stressed that it is essential for aspirants to maintain purity if dugpaship is to be avoided.

-http://www.theosophy.ph/encyclo/index.php?title=Dugpa#


Who Are the Dugpas in Theosophical Writings?

by David Reigle, June 2009

In the early Theosophical writings, H. P. Blavatsky used the term “dugpa” for the various non-Gelugpa orders of Tibetan Buddhism, namely, for the Kagyupa, Nyingmapa, and Sakyapa orders. In doing this, she followed the usage of Western writers of the time. These writers indiscriminately termed all of these orders as “Red Caps,” “Shammars,” and “Dugpas,” or “Dukpas.”
Blavatsky additionally used the term “dugpa” for followers of the non-Buddhist Bon religion of Tibet. We know that Blavatsky used the books of these writers because she often quotes them.

Indeed, she drew the term “Kiu-te,” a phonetic spelling of the Tibetan rgyud sde that long baffled researchers, from Narratives of the Mission of George Bogle to Tibet, and of the Journey of Thomas Manning to Lhasa, published in London in 1876 (2nd ed. 1879).

The editor of this book, Clements R. Markham, writes about the dugpas or dukpas in his Introduction:

In the middle of the fourteenth century a great reforming Lama arose in Tibet, named Tsong-khapa, . .. His reforms led to a schism in the Tibetan church. The old sect, which resisted all change, adhered to their dress, and are called Shammars, or Dukpas, and Red Caps. Their chief monastery is at Sakia-jong, and they retain supremacy in Nepal and Bhutan. (p. xlvi)

As may be seen, Markham lumped together all those who did not follow Tsongkhapa’s new order, the Gelugpas, as the “old sect,” calling them “Shammars, or Dukpas, and Red Caps.”

Moreover, in the then prevailing ignorance of things Tibetan, he stated that the headquarters of the Red Caps is at Sakia-jong.

. . . the great monastery of Sakia-jong (Sankia of D’Anville), the headquarters of the Red Cap sect of Buddhists. (p. xxviii)

In fact, Sakia-jong, or Sakya-dzong, is the headquarters of only one “red cap” order, the Sakyapas. Markham did, however, give information from Brian Hodgson that would place the actual dugpas in Bhutan, not at Sakya-dzong in Tibet.

While the Gelukpa, or Yellow sect, is in the ascendant in Tibet, the adherents of the older, but now heretical Red sect, still have a large monastery at Sakia-jong, and have retained supremacy among the Buddhists in Nepal and Bhutan, on the slopes of the Southern Himalaya. . . . Mr. Brian Hodgson, who is unrivalled in his knowledge of the Cis-nivean Himalayan races, divides the inhabitants of the region between the Kali and the Monass into ten tribes, the Cis-Himalayan Bhotias or Tibetans in the upper zone, the Sienwar, Gurung, Magar, Murmi, Newar, Kirati, and Limbu, in Nepal; the Lepcha in Sikkim, and Lhopa or Dukpa*

(Bhutanese) in Bhutan.

*footnote: Lho is the native name of Bhutan. Lhopa is therefore a territorial designation, while Dukpa refers to their belonging to the Red Cap sect. (p. lii)

Notice that already Markham refers to the red caps with the pejorative term “heretical.” We will return to this shortly.

But at present we must find out just who the dugpas or dukpas really are. Markham shows in his footnote that he understands Dukpa to refer to the Red Cap sect. It is followed in Bhutan, in agreement with Brian Hodgson, and also in Sikkim according to Markham.

The Lepchas of Sikkim are ruled over by a dynasty of Rajahs originally from Lhasa, who have always been under the dominion of Tibet, and of the Buddhist religion and Dukpa (Red Cap) sect. (p. lxxxii)

Again, Markham equates the Dukpa with the “Red Cap” orders in general. But in fact, dugpa or dukpa is ’brug pa, the Kagyu sub-order that prevails in Bhutan, not in Sikkim. That this is a separate order or “sect” of Tibetan Buddhism was made known in an earlier book also quoted by Blavatsky, Buddhism in Tibet, by Emil Schlagintweit, published in Leipzig and London in 1863. Under the heading, "Buddhist sects in Tibet," pp. 72 ff., he lists nine orders: the Nyigmapa, Urgyenpa, Kadampa, Sakyapa, Gelukpa, Kargyutpa, Karmapa, Brikungpa, and Brugpa. The ninth and last he describes as: The Brugpa (also Dugpa or Dad Dugpa) sect has established a particular worship of the Dorje (Vajra, or thunderbolt), which descended from heaven and fell upon the earth at Séra in Eastern Tíbet. This sect seems, moreover, to be particularly addicted to the Tantrika mysticism, in which the Dorje is considered as a very important and powerful instrument. (p. 74)

Here we see that the Dugpa is a distinct order of Tibetan Buddhism, the Brugpa, and not the “red caps” in general, who would be all of the orders except the Gelugpa, or “yellow caps.”

But not until L. Austine Waddell’s 1895 book, The Buddhism of Tibet, or Lamaism (London: W. H. Allen & Co.) was this error among Western writers addressed. Waddell correctly describes the Dug-pa (’brug pa) as a sub-sect of the Kagyupas, pointing out that the name Dug-pa has been wrongly used in European books. Under the heading, “The Kar-gyu-pa Sect,” he writes: The next great sub-sect is the Dug-pa* [*footnote: 'brug-pa . . .], which also arose with a pupil of Mila-rä-pa’s disciple, Dvag-po. . 

Much confusion has been caused in European books by misusing the name Dug-pa, employing it as a synonym for the “red-hat” sect, which properly is the Ôi∫-ma. (p. 68)

But Waddell introduces a new error here, in saying that the “red-hat” sect is properly the Nyingma. In fact, all the orders except the Gelugpa wear red hats when hats are used. He no doubt meant that only the Nyingmas are entirely unreformed.

Under the heading, “The Ôi∫-ma-pa Sects,” he writes further:
The wholly unreformed section of the Låmas was, as we have seen, named Ôi∫-ma-pa, or “the old school.” It is more freely than any other tinged with the native Bön or pre-Buddhist practices; and celibacy and abstinence are rarely practised. This is the real “red-hat” sect of Låmas, and not the Dug-pa as is stated in European books. (p. 72)

So we see that early European writers on Tibet referred to all the non-Gelugpa orders of Tibetan Buddhism as Dugpas.

Moreover, even in Waddell’s book we notice a rather pejorative tone in his description of the “red-hats.” There was, historically, actual fighting and warfare between Gelugpas and Kagyupas for supremacy and state rule. This inevitably produces ill-will and prejudice. Markham notes in his book that a Chinese emperor attempted to reconcile the two factions.

As regards Tibet, an embassy had been sent to Lhasa by the Em peror Kang-hi, to reconcile the Yellow and Red Cap factions, . . .

The prevailing attitude of prejudice between the two parties is clearly portrayed in the 1774 account written by George Bogle, found in Markham’s book: It may be necessary to state that there are two sets of clergy in Tibet, distinguished by, and classed under the names of, Yellow Caps and Red Caps. The Dalai and Teshu Lamas are at the head of the Yellow Caps; the Red Caps have their own Lamas and monasteries. In times of old there were violent disputes between them, in which the Yellow Caps got the victory, as well by the assistance of the Tatars as by their superior sanctity. But as I adhere to the tenets of this sect, and have acquired my knowledge of religion from its votaries, I will not here say much upon the subject, lest it should be thought spiteful. I may be allowed, however, just to mention two things, which must convince every unprejudiced person of the wicked lives and false doctrines of the Red Caps. In the first place, many of the clergy marry; and in the next, they persist, in opposition to religion and common sense, in wearing Red Caps. The priests who now visited us were of this last sect. There might be about eight of them. Each held a staff in one hand and a rosary in the other. They formed into a circle, and began to chant their prayers, which, as I understood they were put up for my welfare, I was in no haste to interrupt. At length, to show them that, however hostile to their principles, I bore them no personal grudge, I dismissed them with a few small pieces of silver." (pp. 179-180)

Thus, not only did Blavatsky follow the usage then current, of referring indiscriminately to all the non-Gelugpa orders of Tibetan Buddhism as “Red Caps,” “Shammars,” and “Dugpas” (including also the non-Buddhist Bons), she also followed the then current prejudice against these orders. Whether or not there is any basis to this prejudice beyond historical animosities is another question. For now, I will conclude with a quotation from Blavatsky indicating that she did believe there were among these orders dugpas in the sense in which she often used the term, as black magicians or “Brothers of the Shadow”:

In the East, they are known as the “Brothers of the Shadow,” living men possessed by the earth-bound elementaries; at times—their  masters, but ever in the long run falling victims to these terrible beings. In Sikkim and Tibet they are called Dug-pas (red-caps), in contra-distinction to the Geluk-pas (yellow-caps), to which latter most of the adepts belong. And here we must beg the reader not to misunderstand us. For though the whole of Bhûtan and Sikkim belongs to the old religion of the Bhons, now known generally as the Dug-pas, we do not mean to have it understood that the whole of the population is possessed, en masse, or that they are all sorcerers. Among them are found as good men as anywhere else, and we speak above only of the élite of their Lamaseries, of a nucleus of priests, "devil-dancers," and fetish worshippers, whose dreadful and mysterious rites are utterly unknown to the greater part of the population. (Blavatsky Collected Writings, vol. 6, pp. 197-198)

Mme. Blavatsky wrote:

Dugpas (Tib.). Lit., “Red Caps,” a sect in Tibet. Before the advent of Tsong-ka-pa in the fourteenth century, the Tibetans, whose Buddhism had deteriorated and been dreadfully adulterated with the tenets of the old Bhon religion,—were all Dugpas. From that century, however, and after the rigid laws imposed upon the Gelukpas (yellow caps) and the general reform and purification of Buddhism (or Lamaism), the Dugpas have given themselves over more than ever to sorcery, immorality, and drunkenness. Since then the word Dugpas has become a synonym of “sorcerer”, “adept of black magic” and everything vile. There are few, if any, Dugpas in Eastern Tibet, but they congregate in Bhutan, Sikkim, and the borderlands generally.[1]

In one of his letters, Master K.H. wrote to A. P. Sinnett:

In our mountains here, the Dugpas lay at dangerous points, in paths frequented by our Chelas, bits of old rag, and other articles best calculated to attract the attention of the unwary, which have been impregnated with their evil magnetism. If one be stepped upon a tremendous psychic shock may be communicated to the wayfarer, so that he may lose his footing and fall down the precipice before he can recover himself. Friend, beware of Pride and Egoism, two of the worst snares for the feet of him who aspires to climb the high paths of Knowledge and Spirituality. You have opened a joint of your armour for the Dugpas — do not complain if they have found it out and wounded you there.[2]

Drukpa Lineage

The word "dugpa" was frequently used by Mme. Blavatsky and the Masters in a generic sense to refer to all "red-cap" or "red-hat" sects of Tibetan Buddhism, that is, the Nyigmapas, Kagyupas, Sakyapas, and the pre-Buddhist natives Böns. These are the non-reformed sects that did not follow Tsongkhapa’s new order, the Gelugpas.

As David Reigle showed, this general meaning for the word "dugpa" was prevalent during Blavatsky's time. This mistake was corrected in 1895 by L. Austine Waddell’s book, The Buddhism of Tibet, or Lamaism, where he states that the Dug-pa are a sub-sect of the red-cap sect Kagyupa.[3] This sub-sect eventually came to be the main school of Buddhism in Bhutan, known as the "Drukpa Kargyu".[4]

Mme. Blavatsky wrote an article in line with this view, where she uses the term "dugpa" in a more restricted way, applying it to the Nyingmapas and Shammars in Bhutan:

The "Dug-pa(*) or Red Caps" belong to the old Nyang-na-pa sect, who resisted the religious reform introduced by Tsong-kha-pa between the latter part of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth centuries. It was only after a lama coming to them from Tibet in the tenth century had converted them from the old Buddhist faith so strongly mixed up with the Bhon practices of the aborigines--into the Shammar sect, that, in opposition to the reformed "Gyelukpas," the Bhootanese set up a regular system of reincarnations.

(*) The term "Dug-pa" in Tibet is deprecatory. They themselves pronounce it "Dög-pa" from the root to "bind" (religious binders to the old faith): while the paramount sect--the Gyeluk-pa (yellow caps)--and the people, use the word in the sense of "Dug-pa" mischief-makers, sorcerers. The Bhootanese are generally called Dug-pa throughout Tibet and even in some parts of Northern India.[5]

However, even this reference to this particular Bhutanese sect should not be taken in a too general way. In reference to the Brothers of the Shadow, Mme. Blavatsky wrote:

In Sikkim and Tibet they are called Dug-pas (red-caps), in contra-distinction to the Geluk-pas (yellow-caps), to which latter most of the adepts belong. And here we must beg the reader not to misunderstand us. For though the whole of Bhûtan and Sikkim belongs to the old religion of the Bhons, now known generally as the Dug-pas, we do not mean to have it understood that the whole of the population is possessed, en masse, or that they are all sorcerers. Among them are found as good men as anywhere else, and we speak above only of the élite of their Lamaseries, of a nucleus of priests, "devil-dancers," and fetish worshippers, whose dreadful and mysterious rites are utterly unknown to the greater part of the population.[6]

Shammar

When Blavatsky uses the term "shammar" she is not referring to the tribe of Shammar (Arabic: شمّر "Šammar") which around 1850 ruled much of central and northern Arabia, from Riyadh to the frontiers of Syria and the vast area known as Al Jazira in Northern Iraq. She refers to an offshoot of the Böns:

The Shammar sect is not, as wrongly supposed, a kind of corrupted Buddhism, but an offshoot of the Bön religion—itself a degenerated remnant of the Chaldean mysteries of old, now a religion entirely based upon necromancy, sorcery and sooth-saying. The introduction of Buddha’s name in it means nothing.[7]

There are references to this use of the term in the 19th century. For example, in a book on the history of Hindustan we find:

Two sects divide the votaries of Buddha, the Gyllookpa [Gelug-pa], distinguished by robes of yellow cloth, and the Shammar, clothed in red. In ancient times, the latter are reported to have been the most numerous; till the Gyllookpa assembling a mighty army, drove them from their possessions, and forced them to take refuge in Bootan, whose inhabitants are all of that sect.[8]

-http://theosophy.wiki/en/Dugpa

The Humour of Life

One suffers at times a kind of pain when one comes into an assemblage of Anthroposophists. Such a heaviness in the air! No inducing the members to get a move on! If one begins a discussion, no one else so much as opens his mouth; why, their very tongues are heavy — heavy as lead! And they pull such long faces! Out of the question to expect them to look happy or to laugh! And yet, do you know what is the first and most essential qualification for a teacher of these children? Humour! Yes, real humour, the humour of life. You may have mastered every possible clever method and device, but you will not be able to educate these children unless you have the necessary humour.

There will have to be a feeling and understanding in the anthroposophical movement for what “movement”, mobility, really is!

-Rudolf Steiner 

JESUS IN THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY- the 100 B.C. date

Some Theosophical leaders have taught that Jesus lived about 100 B.C., and that he was not crucified; they identify him with Jeschu Ben Pandera (the spelling varies, and will do so in this note) of Jewish tradition, who was stoned. This effectively undercuts orthodox Christianity - if there was no suffering “under Pontius Pilate”, then there was no conventional Atonement, and if the New Testament can be wrong on so important a matter as the date and manner of death of its main character then its reliability is low.

The 100 B.C. theory (the precise date is sometimes given differently) was introduced by H.P. Blavatsky in “Isis Unveiled” Vol. 2 p. 201. She cites Eliphas Levi “La Science Des Esprits” (Paris, Germer Balliere, 1865, a publisher with offices in London and New York also.) Levi there printed the Jewish accounts. His book has not been translated, but it is in the S.P.R. Library. Although she did not always commit herself to the theory, H.P.B. did endorse it in several places, notably in 1887 in two articles “The Esoteric Character of the Gospels” and her response in French to the Abbe Roca’s “Esotericism of Christian Dogma”. Both are in Collected Writings Vol. 8 - see especially pages, 189, 224, 380-2 and 460-1. Among scholars she cited Gerald Massey in support, but added (p. 380) “Our Masters affirm the Statement.”

The anti-Semitic writer Nesta H. Webster “Secret Societies and Subversive Movements” (London, 1928), quoting this same article asks “Who were the Masters whose authority Madame Blavatsky here invokes? Clearly not the Trans-Himalayan Brotherhood to whom she habitually refers by this term, and who can certainly not be suspected of affirming the authenticity of the Toldoth Yeshu. It is evident, then, that there were other “Masters” from whom Madame Blavatsky received this teaching, and that those other masters were Cabalists.” (p. 297-8) Webster had already quoted the same Levi book (Webster p. 68), whose subtitle read in part “Revelation du dogme secret des Kabbalistes”.

Now the connections between Eastern and Western occult inspirers of H.P.B. are interesting and important, but Mrs. Webster’s distinction does not immediately work. We do find the Eastern masters supporting the 100 B.C. theory, though the references are not as full as might be wished for such a significant matter. K.H. for example speaks of “John the Baptist having never heard of Jesus who is a spiritual abstraction and no living man of that epoch.” (M.L. Sinnett 3rd ed. p. 409). Earlier the man “Jeshu” is called “but a mortal like any of us, an adept more by his inherent purity and ignorance of real Evil that by what he had learned with his initiated Rabbis and the already (at that period) fast degenerating Egyptian hierophants and priests.” (p. 339)

In 1881, too, K.H. wrote footnotes to some Levi articles, and said of the doctrine of Jesus, both public and private, “But he preached it a century before his birth.” (Paradoxes of the Highest Science”).

Whether Levi himself subscribed to the theory, I do not know; despite two recent biographies in English, Levi remains obscure, and in other books, speaks derisively of the theory (but was that to avoid legal trouble?) I hope to discuss his links with H.P.B. in a separate paper. (A useful starting point is the biographical essay by Boris De Zirkoff in C.W. Vol. 1. p. 491-5.) The theory about Jesus became entangled, in France especially, with anticlericalism, politics, antisemitism and occult streams little known in the English world, or to Theosophists generally.

Among later Theosophists, G. de Purucker was firm in support of the theory. His comments in 1934 about the “Real Birth-Date of Jesus” are included in “Studies in Occult Philosophy” (1945) p. 426-8. “The Statement” he noted “is made from our esoteric records; but these esoteric records also are largely based on astronomical and genuinely astrological wisdom.” Each Messianic Cycle of about 2160 years had its own Messiah “and the Messiah of the present Messianic Cycle was the power, the influence, working through H.P.B.”

Annie Besant popularised the theory in her “Esoteric Christianity”, in the chapter on “The Historical Christ”. She says “The Child whose Jewish name has been turned into that of Jesus was born in Palestine B.C. 105, . . “ Eventually “the human body of Jesus paid the penalty for enshrining the glorious Presence of a Teacher more than man”, apparently a reference to stoning by other Jews. (4th ed. Adyar T.P.H. 1946 p. 96, 100–1). Mrs. Besant enjoyed the clairvoyant assistance of C.W. Leadbeater on this as on other matters, though as made clear above, this theory was not a later development of Theosophy, but entered early. Leadbeater characteristically quoted “Esoteric Christianity” in his book “The Christian Creed” 2nd ed. T.P.H. 1917 p.13–c4), in which also the theory of a greater Master Christ possessing Jesus is deployed. In expounding the credal statement “was crucified, dead and buried” he was obliged to explain it as allegory” (P. 81) while Pontius Pilate, historical though he was, is held to have got into the story by mistranslation (p. 80).

In the background for both these writers is clairvoyant research carried out at the turn of the century in cooperation with G.R.S. Mead, the Theosophical scholar with a special interest in Christian origins. A valuable description of this research was given by C. Jinarajadasa “Occult Investigations” (T.P.H. 1938) p. 34–40—it is of course only one chapter in the investigations that the two made, the most famous perhaps being in occult chemistry. Jinarajadasa points out of Mead “in the end he lost all faith in the veracity of the investigations.” (P. 40) This was after he had left the T.S. and had developed doubts about his colleagues in other respects.

Mead himself alluded guardedly to these experiments in his book “Did Jesus Live 100 Years B.C.? (T.P.H. 1903) which was a careful account of the Jewish and early Christian material relevant to the question. Speaking of the occult researchers with whom he worked he observes “Now, this handful of friends of mine who are endowed in this special fashion are unanimous in declaring that “Jeschu”, the historical Jesus, lived a century before the traditional date.” (p. l9) He gives the impression that there were several researchers, but I suspect it was mainly Leadbeater. Mead did not commit himself in the end of the book, and he made no appeal to the authority of the Masters.

Another Theosophist of the time, who did eventually claim a mahatmic source (D.K.) was Alice Bailey. She taught much that was congenial to the Theosophy of her day; sometimes cited Mrs. Besant; and was aware of the symbolical value of the life of Jesus, with the crucifixion for example, representing one initiation for disciples—but she apparently had no interest in the 100 B.C. theory and accepted the traditional date. And Rudolf Steiner directly— indeed forcefully, challenged the theory. Claiming his own occult lineage, and a capacity to read the Akashic Records, he dated the crucifixion as 3rd April A.D. 33. He identified Jeschu ben Pandira as a forerunner and herald of Jesus of Nazareth. Pandira had lived a century before him, and was a very important individuality, the current holder in fact of the rank of Bodhisattva in the Theosophical scheme—but not the same as Christ Jesus. For good measure Steiner added that Jeschu ben Pandira was again in incarnation, preparing for the new perception of the etheric Christ in the twentieth century. Thus the clairvoyance of Steiner and Leadbeater was in opposition.

Mr. Jinarajadasa remained interested in the 100 BC theory to the end of his life. Reviewing a work on biblical criticism in “The Theosophist” June 1950, (Martin Dibelius “From Tradition to Gospel”) he argued that the events had probably taken place very much earlier that at the period narrated. In the July 1950 issue, he returned to the theory, suggesting that the Dead Sea Scrolls, found in 1947, supported the belief that the Essenes had had a Messiah who had been killed 100 years before the crucifixion.

Mr. Jinarajadasa was the last Theosophical leader to take a personal interest in the theory, but it still surfaces, both in expositions of H.P.B.’s teachings, and of those of her successors. In “The Theosophist” April 1985, Miss Rosamunde Prior, exploring the meaning today of “Gospel Truth” (p. 252) notes; “Occult Tradition with regard to the life of Jesus states that he lived a hundred years before the received date and was murdered at Lydd (or Ludd) about 70 B.C.” The reference in the Fourth Gospel to the High Priest’s fear that the Romans would come and take away to refer to about 70 B.C. their place and nation, is said (Lydda incidentally was a town about 25 miles from Jerusalem, an administrative centre, and the site of an early Christian community mentioned in Acts of the Apostles.)

A somewhat severe judgment of the theory is found in Gregory Tillett’s biography of Leadbeater “The Elder Brother” (1982). “There is not a single reputable Biblical scholar, archaeologist or historian who supports this claim, and, on the basis of modern research, there is no reason to seriously question the traditional date for the birth of Jesus at about 5 B.C.” (p. 272). As we have seen, however, this theory was not invented by Leadbeater, and has been held by persons at an opposite pole to him in theosophical thought. It is true, so far as I am aware, that the theory has not found any definite takers among biblical scholars, though the sceptical Professor George Wells who doubts if Jesus existed, more than once alludes to Mead. Even Jewish reference works accept the conventional dating. So independent a scholar as Professor Morton Smith, whose “Jesus the Magician” (1978) is of great interest to the student, accepts the fact that Jesus was executed by Pilate. Noting “the confusion produced in rabbinic material by several factors.” he explains “First, the rabbis are generally ignorant of chronology and constantly guilty of absurd anachronisms. Second, they habitually refer to their enemies by abusive nicknames and puns, usually bad. Third, in the case of Jesus, particularly, this practice of concealed reference has been carried to the extreme by manuscript copyists to avoid censorship.” (p. 47)

However, it may be that biblical scholars are confused by the material through not realising esoteric levels to it that would make it much clearer. And the mainstream labours of biblical scholars who accept the usual date have not resulted in a generally convincing interpretation of Jesus. What we need of course is a re-examination of the evidence that updates the scholarship from Mead’s time to the present; and with all respect to those who stand by occult tradition, unless this is done the case for the theory will partly go by default. Indeed it becomes one person’s reading of the akashic records, or otherwise secret records, set against another. The theory is not crucial for a gnostic or esoteric interpretation of Jesus. If it became known to Jewish students of the Kabala, and thence was transmitted to Gentile students, and was passed by some Western occultists to their oriental colleagues, we can see how both H.P.B. and K.H. could have come to espouse it. But should we accept it today without more study? Too much rests upon it for it to be a passing reference in the teachings.

NOTES

1. Mr. Leslie Shepard, who edited the University Books edition of “Did Jesus live 100 Years B.C.?” tells me that he has Gerald Massey’s annotated copy of the Rev. S. Baring-Gould’s book “The Lost and Hostile Gospels: An Essay on the Toledoth Jeschu and the Petrine and Pauline Gospels of the First Three Centuries of which Fragments Remain.” (1874). This is probably Massey’s main source of Jewish accounts of Jesus. Was Baring Gould’s account known to
H.P.B.?

2. It is important to recognise that the “Toldoth Jeshu” was not a novelty in France when Levi wrote. It had been praised by Voltaire who died in 1778. See Schonfield (cited below) p. 21. 3. 

Among later writers who briefly mention Mead, see:
a) “Jesus of Nazareth his life, times and teaching” by Joseph Klausner, Ph.D. (Heidelberg) who published the Hebrew edition in Jerusalem in 1922. Translated by Canon Danby, London 1925.
Includes a section on Hebrew sources. Argues that Jesus is understandable in terms of the Palestinian Judaism of his day.

This shocked his fellow Zionists, and will also irritate those who insist on seeing Jesus as obtaining his teaching outside Palestine, and outside Judaism.

b) “According to the Hebrews, a new translation of the Jewish Life of Jesus (Toldoth Jeshu”), with an enquiry into the nature of its sources and special relationship to the lost Gospel according to the Hebrews” by Hugh J. Schonfield (London, Duckworth, 1937).

c) “Christian Origins in Jewish Tradition” by Ernst Bammel in New Testament Studies 13 (1967) p. 317–35. (I would welcome details of later articles in theological journals that review this material.
There is much solid work being done at present on the relationship between Christianity and Judaism, but this often contains only passing references to the early Jewish traditions about Jesus.)

d) “Origen and the Jews, Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine” Nicholas R.M. De Lange. C.U.P. 1976 esp. p. 173.

4. The main text of this paper was included in my remarks to the T.S. conference “Rediscovering Gnosis: a renaissance in Christian thought?” in London on 16th June I was greatly interested that Nigel Blair, another speaker, independently raised the Steiner and Edgar Cayce teachings on the dating and background of Jesus.

A Theosophist would naturally write off Cayce’s revelations as trance fantasies, but if he did accurately foresee the finding of scrolls at Qumran, then perhaps he did have some clairvoyant capacity.

5. For Rudolf Steiner’s views, a starting point is “The Gospel of St. Matthew” 12 lectures given in Berne 1st-12th September 1910 4th ed. Rudolf Steiner Press 1965, especially lectures 4 & 5 and Appendix II “Jeschu ben Pandira” which cites Mead.

-Leslie Price

Theosophical History Magazine Vol. I, No. 3 (July 1985)