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)

THE WAY OF INITIATION or The Superphysical World and its Gnosis

The readers of this magazine [The Theosophist] cannot have forgotten the very instructive articles that were published some time ago entitled, "The Superphysical World and its Gnosis". They were translated from the German of Dr. Steiner by Mr. Max Gysi, who now issues them in a book form. Our President [Annie Besant] says in her foreword to the book : 

"Dr. Steiner's views, representing a deeply mystical Christian Theosophy, are of very great utility, supplying a side of theosophical thought which might otherwise miss fitting recognition. He is the natural heir of the great German mystics, and adds to their profound spirituality the fine lucidity of a philosophic mind.

"If English readers find herein presentiments of great truths that seem somewhat unfamiliar, let them seek to gain new views of truth by studying it from another standpoint. If they read sympathetically, seeking to understand, rather than in the spirit of antagonism, seeking to criticise, they will find many a gem of value, many a pearl of price, among the thoughts herein presented, and Theosophy's jewelled diadem will be the richer for their insetting."

A good portrait of Dr. Steiner accompanies some biographical notes by Edward Schure. We need not dilate upon the merits of the contents as our readers are familiar with them. We hope the volume will have the warm reception it deserves.

-B.P. Wadia


http://www.iapsop.com/archive/materials/theosophist/theosophist_v30_n5_feb_1909.pdf

Viewing the Dawn

The viewing of the dawn can promote......considerate patience. You cannot hurry the dawn yourself – it is obvious just what you have with an unripe dawn – you have but predawn gloom. If you hurry too much you can miss its occurrence in its most real sense – you can actually miss experiencing the arraignment of this paradise. The tension and anticipation, the melody, the mood, the airs … the expanding forthwith day. 

For the unripe personality they will say “Oh, there will always be another dawn tomorrow I can see” … but for the mature they realise that not one is ever alike unto another. The unripe personality very rarely will catch this daily event. Yet the mature individual will take in many. The unripe individual will probably busy himself or chatter the moments away, whilst the mature nature might be held in great fulfilment within just a moment of a moment of its glory. 

We can actually work over our personalities during this morning episode for the better in this regard. The unripe individual who is determined to curb his immature aspects within his worldly and inner behaviors will benefit fantastically by learning to take in the morning’s awakening with peaceful and solemn consideration.

-B.Hive