283
Brahminical philosophy, but that of the trans-Himalayan Arhats, as very correctly stated by Mr. Subba Row in big "Brahminism on the Seven-fold Principle in Man"—"it is extremely difficult to show (to the profane H. P. B.!) whether the Tibetans derived their doctrine from the ancient Rishis of India, or the ancient Brahmans learned their occult science from the adepts of Tibet; or again, whether the adepts of both countries professed originally the same doctrine and derived it from a common source. However that may be, the knowledge of the occult power of nature possessed by the inhabitants of the lost Atlantis, was learnt by the ancient adepts of India, and was appended by them to their esoteric doctrine taught by the residents of the sacred island (Shambhala). The Tibetan adepts, however, have not accepted this addition to their esoteric doctrine". Thus, the readers of the Theosophist were told from the first (in 1882) that they "should expect to find a difference between the two doctrines." One of the said "differences" is found in the exoteric exposition, or form of presentation of the seven-fold principle in man.
II.Though the fundamental doctrines of Occultism and Esoteric philosophy are one and the same the world over, and that is the secret meaning under the outward shell of every old religion—however much they may conflict in appearance—is the outcome of, and proceeds from, the universal Wisdom-Religion—the modes of thought and of its expression must necessarily differ. There are Sanskrit words used—"Jiva," for one—by trans-Himalayan adepts, whose meaning differs greatly in verbal applications from the meaning it has among Brahmans in India.
III.I have never boasted of any knowledge of Sanskrit, and, when I came to India last, in 1879, knew very superficially the philosophies of the six schools of Brahminism. I never pretended to teach Sanskrit or explain Occultism in that language. I claimed to know the esoteric philosophy of the trans-Himalayan Occultists and no more. What I knew
