Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00049)

HPB, in defending drawing upon a book (Stanzas) that she knows the existence
of which she will be accused of making up in the Introductory of SD, makes a
number of unusually indicative remarks.

First, she gives, as variants, of Dyzan, dzan and Chan.  This is significant
on the hypothesis that the esoteric philosophy discovered by her was indeed
Bon Dzog chen.  She is discussing the inter-related meanings of "budhism,"
"Buddhism," "bodhi" (note she calls it the "divine conscience" - this is the
phrase Central Asian Dzog chen practitioners, under Zoroastrian influence,
call the Buddha seed.), and "buddhi."  Much later, returning to the criticisms
made of the book Esoteric Buddhism, where she once again says it should have
been "budhism," she also says it is an esoteric lamaism that IS NOT the
Buddhism of Gautama, even though some Tibetan Buddhist claim that
they are this esoteric lamaism (SD vol. 539).  This points to Bon.
Anyway, in the Introductory, she identifies the terms "dhyan," "dzan,"
"dyzan," and "chan."  This is a significant identification.  "Dhyana" is
meditation.  The Central Asian Iranian Kushan word would be "dzan."  But
there has been much recent interest in whether Chan Buddhism
(otherwise known as Zen Buddhism) isn't a "stream-lined" offshoot of
Dzog chen (for discussions of this, see Namkhai Norbu, Dzog chen and
Chan, and in his commentary in John Reynold's book, Golden
Letters).

Second, HPB keeps making references to the Tarim Basin.  This area is a
new archeological treasure-trove.  The westernmost extreme of this basin
ends up on the road to Shamis en Balkh (modern day Balkh and the original
Shambhallah) along the old Silk Route, in the center is a series of seven lost
cities around what is called the Turfan oasis, and in the eastern edge Tun
huang.  There are buried libraries and whole cities throughout the region.
Excavation of them began in 1910 and has proceeded slowly.  Here we have
pulled out gnostic texts, Manichaean texts, Nestorian Christian texts,
Zoroastrian texts, Taoist texts, and Buddhist texts.  The find is already
bigger than Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea combined.  Just like we find in the Nag
Hammadi tests a situation where pre-Christian gnostic texts are being
converted into Christian gnostic texts, so we find Manichaean texts being
converted into Taoist and Buddhist texts, Buudhist texts being translated
into Iranian and Aramaic out of which Chinese and Turkish translations are
made.  Significantly, at Tun huang, sealed caves were found
that have pulled out a lot of Dzog chen texts.  This find has two
implications.
First, contrary to scholarly opinion up to the time of these finds, Dzog chen
is immensely older (as Bon and Nyingmapas have claimed) than either
the rival Gelukpas or modern scholars were willing to accept.  Second, since
Tun huang also contained Taoist texts, it is reasonable to surmise that
Zen/Chan is an offshoot of an earlier form of Central Asia Dzog chen than
found in the Tibetan Nyingmapa tradition (which only dates from the ninth
century when Buddhism began to enter Tibet.).

In any event, HPB, in defending herself in advance of the accusation that
she is quoting from a "mythical book," namely the Stanzas, in giving these
equivalents, in distinguishing esoteric lamaism from Buddhism (even Buddhism
in Tibet), and in referring repeatedly, as if pointing, to what might be found
in the Tarim Basin, also seems to be providing definite clues that her source
is Bon Dzog chen.  Since she also says (1) her budhism is the same as the
Vedic and since (2) it is Bon that has been accused of being a Hindu import
because it has a "soul doctrine" that looks heretical to the orthodox
Buddhist schools that teach
no-self and since she (3) contrasted her esoteric lamaism from orthodox
Buddhism of both northern and southern schools and (4) since Bon claim that
their religion and founding guru came from the Persian empire and was
Persian, this is further four bits of evidence that her source was the Bon
Dzog chen.

G.V.A