“Neither Renan nor Strauss, nor the modern Viscount Amberley, seem to have had the remotest suspicion of the real meaning of many of the parables of Jesus, or even of the character of the great Galilean philosopher. Renan, as we have seen, presented him to us as a Gallicized Rabbi, “le plus charmant de tous”, still but a Rabbi, and one, moreover, who does not even come out of the school of Hillel, or any other either, albeit he terms him repeatedly “the charming doctor”. He shows him as a sentimental young enthusiast, sprung out of the plebeian classes of Galilee, who imagines the ideal kings of his parables the empurpled and jeweled beings of whom one reads in nursery tales. Lord Amberley’s Jesus, on the other hand, is an “iconoclastic idealist”, far inferior in subtilty and logic to his critics. Renan looks over at Jesus with the one-sidedness of a Semitomaniac; Viscount Amberley looks down upon him from the social plane of an English lord.
Apropos of this marriage-feast parable, which he considers as embodying “a curious theory of social intercourse”, the Viscount says: “Nobody can object to charitable individuals asking poor people or invalids without rank at their houses. …But we cannot admit that this kind action ought to be rendered obligatory… it is eminently desirable that we should do exactly what Christ would forbid us doing, namely, invite our neighbors and be invited by them as circumstances may require. The fear that we may receive a recompense for the dinner parties we may give, is surely chimerical. …Jesus, in fact, overlooks entirely the more intellectual side of society.” All of which unquestionably shows that the “Son of God” was no master of social etiquette, nor fit for “society”; but it is also a fair example of the prevalent misconception of even his most suggestive parables.
The theory of Anquetil du Perron that the Bhagavad-Gita is an independent work, as it is absent from several manuscripts of the Maha-Bharata, may be as much a plea for a still greater antiquity as the reverse. The work is purely metaphysical and ethical, and in a certain sense it is anti-Vedic; so far, at least, that it is in opposition with many of the later Brahmanical interpretations of the Vedas.
How comes it, then, that instead of destroying the work, or, at least, of sentencing it as uncanonical – an expedient to which the Christian Church would never have failed to resort – the Brahmans show it the greatest reverence? Perfectly unitarian in its aim, it clashes with the popular idol-worship. Still, the only precaution taken by the Brahmans to keep its tenets from becoming too well-known, is to preserve it more secretly than any other religious book from every caste except the sacerdotal; and, to impose upon that even, in many cases, certain restrictions.
The grandest mysteries of the Brahmanical religion are embraced within this magnificent poem; and even the Buddhists recognize it, explaining certain dogmatic difficulties in their own way. “Be unselfish, subdue your senses and passions, which obscure reason and lead to deceit”, says Christna to his disciple Arjuna, thus enunciating a purely Buddhistic principle. “Low men follow examples; great men give them. …The soul ought to free itself from the bonds of action, and act absolutely according to its divine origin. There is but one God, and all other devotas are inferior, and mere forms (powers) of Brahma or of myself. Worship by deeds predominates over that of contemplation.” This doctrine coincides perfectly with that of Jesus himself.”
H. P. Blavatsky
The Mark Of God: Understanding Your "I AM Presence" 