THE SECRET DOCTRINE OF GAUTAMA THE BUDDHA (1)
Buddham saranam gachchhami;
dharmam saranam gachchhami;
samgham saranam gachchhami:
"I go to the Buddha as my refuge." "I go to the Dharma or the Law as my refuge." "I go to the Order of Holy Ones as my refuge."
This so-called 'Confession of Faith,' although undoubtedly accepted in the spirit as well as in the letter in Northern Asia, is perhaps especially the teaching comprising the substance of the scriptures of the Hinayana. The compound word Hinayana, descriptive of the spirit of Buddhism of Southern Asia, as contrasted with the Mahayana, descriptive of the Buddhism of the North of Asia, means the 'defective' vehicle, the 'inferior' or 'imperfect' vehicle, i. e., that part of the Lord Gautama's teaching which did not contain in explicit formulation the whole of the doctrine which he taught — a fact which itself declares the existence of another part not herein contained. The name itself declares the fact: (hina), i. e., defection, imperfection, incompleteness; and (yana), vehicle.
Now this statement of incompleteness or imperfection does not signify, as might readily be supposed from these words, inaccuracy, falsity, or error; the meaning of the compound Hinayana is that this system, virtually exclusively popular in Southern Asia, gives the formal intellectual teaching of the Buddha — or what has been called the 'Eye-Doctrine,' that which emanated from the Buddha's mind as a categorical framework of his thought; the Mahayana, contrariwise, is stated to contain the more secret — as well as the outer or public — and therefore more difficult aspects of the Buddha-Gautama's teaching, and consequently has often been called the 'Heart-Doctrine.'
The teaching of the Buddha's heart, i. e., the esoteric Wisdom which he kept hid in his 'heart' and delivered solely to those ready to receive it, is, as just stated, called the Mahayana; and it runs back in its origin to a date at least equal in time to that of the beginning of the Hinayana, which, as stated above, is the body of teaching which he delivered openly, visible to the eye so to speak. Both systems, therefore, are truth, i. e., both the Hinayana and the Mahayana are true; but one must combine the teaching of the 'eye' with the teaching of the 'heart': one must combine the exoteric teaching of the Hinayana with the esoteric of the Mahayana — combine the North and the South, so to speak — if one desire to receive the full message of the Tathagata as he delivered it in its relative fulness to his chelas or disciples.
From which of these two systems have our Western Orientalists drawn the far greater part of the Buddhist material which they have subjected to the really conscientious and thorough examination and study which one gladly recognises they have given? Mostly, if not wholly, they have gathered this material out of the scriptures of the Hinayana, the 'defective' vehicle, a system held by some twenty millions of human beings more or less. Of the teachings of the Mahayana of the North and Center of Asia, the esoteric teachings, the 'heart' of the Buddha, they have intimate knowledge as yet of only a few scriptures. It is well known that a vast amount of Mahayana-material still awaits examination and study, but all this material is as yet more or less an unworked field of thought.
As examples of the Mahayana-material already studied, may be mentioned the Saddharma-Pundarika as one; the Lalita-Vistara is another Northern Buddhistic work which has received some small attention from European Orientalists. There are a few other works belonging to the Northern School which have received passing but quite inadequate attention in Europe; and it is doubtful if more than this can be truthfully claimed.
Consequently, it certainly would seem that the opinion of Occidental scholars as to whether there is or is not an esoteric teaching which the Buddha taught or left behind him, is based almost solely upon their studies of the hitherto available scriptures of the Hinayana of the South, the 'defective,' 'imperfect,' because, as said, incomplete, vehicle or system. It is a strange thing indeed to suppose that the Buddha-Gautama is the sole historical instance of a Sage and Seer who was at the same time a religious and philosophical Preceptor, who has left behind him no teachings of a more recondite or secret character than those which he openly proclaimed in his wanderings over Indian mountain and plain. The exception would be so remarkable that it would require particular explanation.
Let us turn now for a few moments to another of the Sutras (2) or religio-philosophical scriptures, held in utmost reverence by something like 400 millions of human beings, all followers, more or less, of the Mahayana-teaching, which, mark you, is as much Buddhism, and genuinely 'orthodox' as is the Hinayana of the South; and the bulk of the testimony as to the value of the teaching certainly remains in the scriptures of the North. Remembering these 400 millions of the North as compared with the twenty millions more or less of the adherents of the Hinayana of the South, this is what is found in the scripture to be quoted from; and it is beyond doubt that many more similar passages could be found, with adequate study, of an even more emphatic tenor.
You are astonished, Kasyapa, that you cannot fathom the mystery expounded by the Tathagata. It is, Kasyapa, because the mystery expounded by the Tathagatas, the Arhats, etc. is difficult to be understood.
And on that occasion, the more fully to explain the same subject, the Lord uttered the following stanzas:
1. I am the Dharmaraja, born in the world as the destroyer of existence. (3)
Now it is the philosophical teaching of Buddhism, when this teaching is properly understood, that the entire world around us is impermanent, illusory, mayavi; but that all existences are founded upon and builded around something inner, secret, esoteric, hid, fundamental, which the Northern Schools, collected under the great Mahayana-teaching, call the Sunyata, i. e., the 'Void,' the Unmanifest as the Theosophist would say. To continue with this quotation from the Saddharma-Pundarika:
I declare the law to all beings after discriminating [examining] their dispositions.
A selective teaching, mark you!
2. Superior men of wise understanding guard the word, guard the mystery, and do not reveal it to living beings. (4)
Yet obviously, the Lord Buddha taught it and revealed it to living beings, to all who were prepared to hear and to understand it. It is pertinent here to ask: What is the meaning of these phrases imbodying the expressions 'word,' 'guarding the mystery,' if the significance is not that of a teaching too difficult for the ordinary man to receive in its fulness, which is therefore kept only for those who, after discriminate examination, have been tested and found to be worthy and well qualified to receive it? Obviously, we have here a distinct reference to a restraint in the delivery of the Secret Doctrine or Esoteric Tradition, which is not revealed indiscriminately to all and sundry because it is a 'mystery' which must be guarded; and yet 'superior men of wise understanding' have received this mystery, for they are enjoined not to deliver it nor to reveal it to 'living beings' unless, indeed, such be fit for the reception.
3. That science is difficult to be understood; the simple, if hearing it on a sudden, would be perplexed; they would in their ignorance fall out of the way and go astray. (5)
Mark you, did the Buddha teach in order to lead people astray? Is such the declaration of the body of Buddhist teaching, and is such an absurdity the burthen of Buddhist belief? Cannot one see the immediate and necessary deduction as just cited? There is, clearly, an inner Teaching which is given only to those who have been examined and found fit to receive it, and examined in order that they may not be led astray by receiving a teaching too comprehensive for them to grasp, and therefore certain to be misunderstood by them. One is well aware of the fact that the Saddharma-Pundarika is alleged by Western scholars to be the product of a later date, one of the works of a mystical school which became very popular in the North of Asia some centuries after the Buddha had passed on. This may very well be the fact, and it was to be expected; but the fact does not invalidate the main point that such teaching of restriction or of withholding could not have arisen nor have been so widely accepted, had there not been current throughout the Northern Buddhism the strong flow of esoteric thought and suggestion which it therefore becomes only proper to trace back doubtless even to the days of the Buddha himself and to his Arhats. Otherwise, the high probability is that any mere later invention or mere mystical speculations of a later date would have been found highly unacceptable, and would have been peremptorily rejected, when the first attempts were made to promulgate them. The history of mystical thought in all other great systems shows clearly enough, and in every case that is remembered by the writer at the moment, that the esotericism of the respective founder of each of these great systems gradually faded out with the passage of time ensuing after his death, and its place was taken by mere orthodoxy, in which the traditional or written scriptures as received became sacrosanct, untouchable, and often clothed with an atmosphere of holiness which forbade any adding or substantial change. This is clearly shown, for instance, in the literature and mystical history of Christianity.
4. I speak according to their reach and faculty; by means of various meanings [i. e., by means of permutable meanings or parables] I accommodate my view (or the theory). (6)
Is this the supposititious 'closed fist' of the Great Teacher, Gautama the Buddha? When one recollects that the main or fundamental teachings of the Buddha were recognised in both the Northern and the Southern Schools, and that the very phrase 'closed fist' must have been current in both schools as one of the graphic expressions of the great Master himself, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the 'closed fist' argument, so often cited by European scholars as against the fact of an esoteric teaching in Buddhism, must be understood as it has been attempted in this present chapter to explain it, i. e., as referring solely to the government of the Order after the Buddha's passing; for indeed, the passage in which the 'closed fist' expression occurs, refers solely to matters of government in the Order after the Buddha's death. The words of this passage state this unequivocally, and it is merely distorting the scripture itself to read into it something that the scripture does not say.
All that the Lord Buddha taught was true in essentials, but he most certainly did not teach everything to all men. He taught all that was needed for the promulgation of the philosophic and religious doctrine which he delivered; identically so as concerns the government of the Order to prevail during his life-time and for its direction after his demise, and did not hold anything back in a 'closed fist"; and the 'closed fist' passage says nothing but that. Hence, the deductions drawn by Westerners from the 'closed fist' phrase, that the Lord Buddha had no esoteric teaching to deliver and he delivered none, and that no esoteric School or Body of disciples existed during and after his life-time, seem to be simply a preposterous inversion of the historical record; and in addition one must submit the entire history of the life-drama of the Lord Buddha as strong witness, testimony, to the contrary. The whole system of the Mahayana of the North as existing in its different varieties in all its various schools, such as that of Nagarjuna, of Aryasamgha, and of others, every one of them teaching an esoteric doctrine, every one of them hinting at a Wisdom which is not given to all and sundry, provides excellent and to every reasonable mind convincing proof that an esotericism or an Esoteric Doctrine, or Esoteric Tradition, existed in Buddhism from the earliest times, and by the logic of history and the well-known traits of human nature must be traced back to the great Founder himself.
If we are to take one Buddhist scripture of the South, the Maha-Parinibbana-Sutta, hereinbefore quoted from, as being the words of the Lord Buddha — and this one is perfectly willing to do with certain natural and necessary reservations depending upon the difficulties of accurate transmission and delivery through the centuries, and having due regard also to the literary formulation of his teachings in scriptural structure — then here on the other side, we have a Northern scripture alleging to be the equally authentic words of the Master, which it seems unreasonable to set aside on grounds of theory or merely literary prejudice, this Northern work stating that the Doctrine is to be delivered with prudence and care, and not to all men, and that the Wise guard it and reveal it not, except, as the preceding sloka or verse says, with discriminating judgment to minds which differ in 'their disposition.' Indeed, and speaking generally, one knows not a single great religious philosophy or philosophical religion, which has not, or which has not had in its origins, an esoteric doctrine. The mere fact that such esoteric doctrine is not properly understood and perhaps even not recognised by all, and possibly again, forgotten in this or some other religion, argues nothing to the contrary, and is certainly not a proof that such esoteric School or Doctrine did not once exist therein.
The objections alleged against the existence, or possibility of the existence, of an esoteric School or body of doctrine in Buddhism, limp painfully because running directly counter to human psychology in such matters; and therefore objections of this character should be scrutinized with meticulous and jealous care. Nor should the religio-philosophical works presently existing in the world and alleging to give the teachings or doctrines of mystical or so-called esoteric or quasi-esoteric schools, be accepted at the face-value of their averments or statements; because virtually all such mystical works are written in veiled fashion, and when read, often repel by the unconscionable exaggerations and often apparently ridiculous distortions of natural fact which they occasionally if not frequently imbody. Such luxuriance in statement and pageantry of metaphor themselves prove that these scriptures are written in the common and usual esoteric cipher, and can be properly construed and understood only by those who possess the keys thereto. It is clear enough that if a doctrine is intended to be esoteric, of necessity, when delivered to the public, its teachings must be hid under veil and allegory; and it is absurd to take veils and allegories, parables or metaphors, tropes or figures of speech, as statements of plain, unvarnished, pragmatical fact. It seems indeed high time that our Western scholars should use ordinary sense in these matters, and if they do not understand and are repelled by the highly figurative language of Oriental or other mystical works, this is no reason for condemning these scriptures as not being what they are alleged to be, or themselves purport to be.
If our Occidental scholars, our European Orientalists — and the writer craves pardon if his language here seem a bit unkind — would use their human common sense and intuitions a little more, i. e., would allow them a freer play in their work and criticism, they would themselves see what the ordinary man who reads these scriptures easily sees for himself; and, furthermore, they would probably realize that taking one half of the scriptures of Buddhism, i. e., those of the Hinayana only, or very nearly 'only,' and drawing deductions from this one half, is not only inadequate and therefore imperfect study, but is likewise distinctly reprehensible work in scholarship. It is, as it were, taking the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, or of the Church of Martin Luther, or of the Church founded by Calvin, and thereupon saying: Here, this is Christianity; it teaches so-and-so; and thus-and-thus; and although other phases of Christian thought may be found in other branches of the Christian Church General, nevertheless the phase of it that we have been studying seems to contain the most ancient ideas and therefore probably the most accurate presentation of the thought and will of the great Founder.
Now, such one-sided study is more or less precisely what too many of our Occidental Orientalists have done — and continue to do. The present writer states, without fear of any consequences arising from contradiction, that there is and always has been as much esoteric teaching in Buddhism — i. e., that there is in fact an esoteric Buddhism, an Esoteric Tradition in it — as there was a very early esoteric or secret side under the Christian doctrinal scriptural tradition; there was as much esotericism in early Buddhism, and it still lives and flourishes in certain places, as there was esotericism in the religions and philosophies and the Mysteries of ancient Greece and of Rome and of Egypt and elsewhere; and that there is and always has been an equally esoteric or secret doctrine in Brahmanism.
Probably the main reason for the widespread misunderstanding of the essential nature of Buddhistic teaching as first delivered to his Arhats or disciples by Gautama the Buddha, and leaving aside for the moment the later development of Buddhistic philosophy due to the labors of monkish philosophers and exegetes, or expounders, is the almost total lack on the part of Western scholars of the past to see that what the Buddha aimed at more than anything else was the bringing to men of a greater light, a larger hope, and a wider spiritual vision. The truth was that he threw open some of the hitherto fast-closed doors of Brahman philosophy, and instantly gained the opposition and ill-will of the larger part of the Brahmanas of his time. The objective of the great Teacher's Wisdom was the improving, or better still unfolding, of human intellectual faculty and spiritual power, as demonstrated by his insistence, emphatic, reiterated and unceasing, on what one may term the Doctrine of Becoming. In the eyes of the Buddha-Gautama, man is a Pilgrim, Child of the Universe, who at times is blinded by Maha maya or the Great Illusion of cosmic existence, and at such times therefore needs to be shown the Way or Law, called the Dharma, pointing to a realization of the fact that only by becoming rather than by mere being could man become the Greater Man which he is in his essential constitution.
It is with genuine pleasure that one may point to a wider and deeper view of the Buddhistic philosophy than has hitherto prevailed in Western countries; and that such wider and therefore wiser visioning of the essential meaning of Buddhism is now coming to the fore, is proved by the very recent appearance of books treating the Buddha and his life-work and religion-philosophy from a more sympathetic viewpoint than has hitherto been customary in the West. Such a work, just off the press  is the booklet entitled Indian Religion and Survival by Mrs. Rhys Davids. In her extremely interesting little work, this brilliant Buddhist scholar, so well known for her labors in the Pali scriptures and translations therefrom, writes as follows, in showing just what the Buddha had in mind in his work:
[The Buddha] sought to show each and every man a More which lay in his nature, his life, his destiny. This was, that to become, to grow spiritually was of the essence of his nature, as spirit or very-man; that to become 'in the right way' he had to exert will, choice; that in him moved and worked Deity in man's inner sense-of-right, of the 'ought,' known as dharma. (7)
Mrs. Rhys Davids is unquestionably right in the ascription to Buddhism of the substance of the great Teacher's message which she sees and briefly refers to in the extract just given. Yet the suggestion that the Buddha taught of a 'Deity' in the manner so commonly understood in the West, even by thus proclaiming the divine immanence, is to wander from what the entire testimony of the Buddhist thought so strongly avers; although indeed if Mrs. Rhys Davids means merely the implication that the 'Deity' here spoken of is the abstract or neuter Divine — as contrasted with the masculine God — this being slightly if at all different from the essential abstract divinity of the Upanishads, then one can only question the propriety of the usage of the word Deity, and agree.
The main thing to note in all this is that the substantial burthen of the Great Teacher's Message, outside of many other important matters, was the emphasis placed upon his doctrine of Becoming, i. e., evolving, growing, unfolding, unwrapping what is within, by all entities whatsoever, man included, through and by means of that ineluctable and wonderful operation of the Universe which the Buddha in common with his predecessors called Karman: the doctrine of inescapable consequences for every thought, act, emotion, or feeling, undergone passively, or initiated actively, by every individual being or entity. It was precisely this union of willing and doing on the part of every entity which brought about its Ever-Becoming, in other words, its constant growth, or, mayhap, in minor stages its periods of retrogression, likewise instances of 'becoming.'
In this really sublime teaching one finds the philosophical structure of Buddhism both exoteric and, as Theosophists claim, esoteric. By his 'becoming,' i. e., by his progress from stage to stage in evolutionary changes which are continuous and uninterrupted, a man, among other beings, may raise himself as high as the highest gods, or may debase himself through his willing and doing to the low and dread levels of the beings in the so-called hells of which so much is found in Buddhistic literature.
In this teaching of Becoming, just as the same is found in esoteric Theosophy, in the Esoteric Tradition, we find both the reason and the rationale of the many statements both in Buddhism and indeed elsewhere that every man has it within his power, by appropriate spiritual, intellectual, psychical, and ethical willing and doing, himself in the course of ages to become a Buddha — a doctrine which, as Mrs. Rhys Davids properly hints, is expressly taught in the Buddhism of Northern and Central Asia. As she truly says:
That not this Bodhisattva only, [the Buddha-Gautama in a former existence] but every man has it in him eventually to realize Buddhahood: this was brought to the front by Mahayana Buddhism. (8)
This is admirable; but it is to be regretted that this able and conscientious Pali scholar should labor under the impression that the Buddhism of Southern Asia should have "neglected to show it as equally applicable to every man."
The reason for Mrs. Rhys Davids' belief that this teaching is lacking in the Pali Scriptures seems to lie in the fact that it is not expressly stated as a doctrine; and yet to the present writer the Hinayana-system contains, both by numerous hints in the various scriptures which imbody its teachings, and in rarer instances by direct allusion, the same doctrine of becoming and the same pointing to the results of such becoming that the Mahayana does, albeit in the latter system the doctrine is explicit and fairly well elaborated.
It may be as well before passing on to refer once more to Mrs. Rhys Davids' clever and very readable little book if only in order to show that modern Western Buddhistic Scholarship is veering markedly away from the Occidental and quasi-Christian prejudices and pre-conceptions that so strongly and injuriously colored the work of virtually all former Occidental Buddhist studies. She speaks at length of the doctrine of 'survival,' around which so much useless controversy has raged in the past as to whether Buddhism does or does not, did or did not, teach the utter annihilation of the human compound at death. Most Western Buddhist scholars of former days, if not all of them, seem to have united in a common opinion to the effect that one proof of the so-called 'Pessimism' of Buddhism was the fact that it taught that with the dissolution of the human compound entity, i. e., at death, the entity vanished, disappeared utterly, was completely annihilated: this in the face of the iterated and reiterated statements of the Buddhist scriptures themselves, even of the Hinayana, that what survived dissolution of the compound entity was its Karman, i. e., the results, consequences, of what the compound entity itself was at the moment of dissolution. It would seem evident to the merest tyro in philosophical thought that the word Karman thus used must have a technical substantial significance, because it is obvious that results or consequences can- not survive the death of their originator, for the reason that if results or consequences do not inhere in some thing or in some entity — i. e., if they are not parts or portions of an entity — they have no existence in themselves. An 'act' cannot survive, nor can a 'consequence' survive, except in the modern Western scientific sense of impressions made on surrounding material, and this is not the meaning of the Buddha's teaching because the scriptures of both the Mahayana and the Hinayana are replete with instances of entities, 'compound aggregates,' which nevertheless after death and after a certain period of other existence in other worlds are reborn as men on earth.
The stories about the Buddha himself are both emphatic and luminous illustrations to the point, as exemplified in the famous Jataka-stories, meaning rebirth-stories. These 550 or more rebirth-stories describe the alleged repeated reincarnations or rebirths of the Buddha, and show him rising from lower stages to higher; and if the 'compound aggregate' is utterly annihilated at its death or dissolution, how, obviously, can such a non-existing entity be reborn in an unending series of reappearances of such entity's intrinsic karman? Is it not obvious that Western Scholars have failed to grasp the subtility and profound meaning of the Buddha's teaching? The riddle is solved — although indeed it is no riddle at all — by remembering the teaching of Theosophy, of the Esoteric Tradition, to the effect that man, equally with every other being or entity or thing, is his own karman: his karman is himself, for he himself is the results, the consequences, the fruitage, the production, of every preceding thought, feeling, emotion, or act in the virtually unending series of past rebirths, each such birth automatically reproducing itself as changed or modified by its own willing and doing — to wit, the consciousness acting upon the 'compound aggregate' thus producing karman, or modifications, or changes, in the substance of the man himself. Thus verily a man is his own karman; he is his own child, the offspring of what he formerly willed and made himself now to be; just as at present, in his actual compound constitution he is willing and making himself, through results or consequences produced upon his constitution, to be what in the future he will become. Just here, again, we see the tremendous force and philosophical power of the Buddha's doctrine of Becoming
Turning now to the promised citation from Mrs. Rhys Davids' booklet, she says:
That it was, in original Buddhism, a given man or woman who survives, who lives on, after death of the body, is always referred to as a truth to be accepted and understood. (9)
And again, wherein she culls a passage from one of the Jatakas:
'Now it may seem to you, Ananda, that at that time Jotipala was a different person, but you should not look upon it like that I at that time was Jotipala ' Could emphasis further go? I say this, because later Buddhism came to deny the passing over of the identical person, came to deny there was any personal survivor. (10)
Now these citations from Mrs Rhys Davids certainly prove that something survives the dissolution of the compound aggregate, following Buddhist thought, when death comes upon this aggregate, but it should be pointed out that this is wholly admitted and emphatically stated in the Buddhist writings themselves, which employ no small emphasis in this ascription of continuity to the x-factor in the compound aggregate which has repeated existences or reincarnations on earth as well as in other worlds. The Buddhist scriptures, as has been stated above, declare that this x-factor is the karman of the entity; Mrs Rhys Davids seems to rebel at this abstract philosophical statement and believes that she finds in what she calls original Buddhism teaching to the effect that there is an actual person who survives physical dissolution or death. Just so, the present writer is wholly at one with her in this, but he is likewise wholly at one with the statement of the Buddhist scriptures themselves, for he has in preceding paragraphs shown with sufficient clarity although sketchily, he believes, that this surviving 'person' is the karmic entity or karman of the preceding entity which died and which thus survives.
What is a 'person,' after all, except a mask, a vehicle, a veil, composed of compounded or aggregate elements drawn from the surrounding nature through which works and lives the spiritual force alluded to in preceding paragraphs, and which, traced to its source, is seen to be the inner Buddha, the Dhyani-Buddha, the inner god? This, the Buddha himself taught, as so well outlined in the Maha-yana-system, man could again become by so living and striving as to bring it into karmic relationship or existence even here on earth
Mrs. Rhys Davids unfortunately seems to ascribe the teaching of the Pali Buddhist scriptures of the survival of the karman as the entity itself, to the monkish elucubrations of Buddhist anchorites who sought to flee from the world, and who thus craved utter annihilation of their essence in preference to its continued existence in conscious rebirths The present writer is positive that Mrs Rhys Davids has here completely misunderstood the subtil philosophical sense of this entire matter; and he believes that Buddhist scholarship in the future will trace back the essential teaching on this matter of the Hinayana Pali scriptures to declarations of Buddha-Gautama himself. Time will show.
Yet one can only desire to render due meed of respect to this courageous student and scholar who, apparently alone, at the present time, is unafraid to face the current of misconception and prejudice which previous Western Buddhistic scholarship has so strongly set in movement.
1. By request THE FORUM reprints these important chapters on the Secret Doctrine of Gautama the Buddha, slightly condensed, from The Esoteric Tradition. They will appear in three installments, the present one being the second. (return to text)
2. Reference is here made to the Saddharma-Pundarika mentioned above, to its chapter v, as translated by H. Kern, of the University of Leiden, Holland, as found in Volume XXI of the Sacred Books of the East series, pages 121-2. (return to text)
3. Ibid. (return to text)
4. Ibid. (return to text)
5. Ibid. (return to text)
6. Ibid. (return to text)
7. Indian Religion and Survival, p. 8: by Mrs. Rhys Davids, d. litt., m. a.; President of the Pali Text Society. (return to text)
8. Op. cit., p. 42. (return to text)
9. Op. cit., p. 56. (return to text)
10. Op. cit., p. 57. (return to text)
The Theosophical ForumTHEOSOPHICAL UNIVERSITY PRESS ONLINE