Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00502)

>
>Dear Jerry and Dan:
>
>If KARMA is a law it is a universal one.
>

It is so only as the Law of Causality. And this works, we now know,
relative to an observer.


>I am quite familiar with the concept of a Jivan-Mukta ( which in
>English means : "free of this Life" ).
>

In that case, how can you persist in your definition of karma?


>I did not invent the definition of Karma, nor did Mme. Blavatsky.
>It is, she says (and so do the Hindu Pundits) the undeviating law
>that balances all causes with their effects.  No exceptions.
>

This is your interpretation, not mine. From a purely relative
viewpoint, it often appears as if this were true. However,
the Good News of Buddhism (the fourth nobel truth, I believe)
is that karma can be eliminated or consumed.  The Jivamukta
is him/herself an exception so you are being contradictory here.


>Our interpretations are valid so long as they are ours and may
>please our minds, but the real question, to my mind is:  Are they
>Universally valid ?  Are we in effect devising our own
>limitations and exceptions, or are we studying the LAW as it is ?
>

Human beings are incapable of studying the "LAW as it is"
whatever that is (?) any more than studying truth as it is.
It is not a question of just needing more data. Truth is not
deterministic.  If anything, it has both linear and nonlinear
components like all living things.


>I think we may always disagree on interpretations so long as they
>are personal.  However the resolution becomes common when and if
>we can perceive a universally similar definition.
>

So far we haven't seen very many of these, have we? BTW,
all interpretations are personal and subject to disagreement
just like all observations (experiences) are. When we collectively
agree on something, we call it a law. But this only lasts until
an Einstein comes along and shows everyone how wrong they
were.


>Lets take the case of a JIVANMUKTA.  "An adept or yogi who has
>reached the ultimate state of holiness and separated himself from
>matter;  a Mahatma, or Nirvanee, a "dweller in bliss" and
>emancipation.  Virtually one who has reached Nirvana during
>life.:  [Theos. Glos. pp 165-6]
>

This may be where we are having problems, Dallas. You are
quoting HPB who does NOT use the term in the way Hinduism
uses it. I prefer the Hindu definition: a person who is living (a jiva
is a living being) who is free of karma (mukti means liberated).
HPB has it completely backwards. She thinks it refers to a
discarnate being, but actually it has always referred to a
living embodied human being who acts without producing
future karma (ie., a living Buddha).



>NIRVANI:  "It is "escape from misery"...

All of this stuff is meaningless, Dallas. The jivamukta (one who
is living as a jivamukti) has nothing at all to do with nirvana.
Please read some Hindu texts on the subject.


>PRATYEKHA BUDDHA "...A DEGREE THAT BELONGS ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY TO
>THE Yogacharya school, yet it is only one of high intellectual
>development with no true spirituality.
>

Phooey!  Where did you ever come up with this wild idea??
If this is HPB, then once again she is wrong. According to the
Mahayana and Vajrayana, the Pratyekha Buddha (the
rhinocerous or lonely one) is a very spiritual Buddhist (arhat) of
the Theravadin school who understands emptiness but who fails
to equate it with bliss. H/She is a buddha without compassion for
others because he recognizes that "others" are maya and
must work out their own salvation. To say that any kind of
Buddha is lacking in spirituality is a true insult and shows
ignorance of the Buddhist state. Even most Tibetan Vajrayanists
don't insult the Pretyekha Buddhas, although they do consider the
Bodhisattva to be superior.


>It is the dead-letter of the Yoga laws, in which intellect and
>comprehension play the greatest part...

Again, I don't agree with any of this and it is teribly insulting.
As far as "intellect and comprehension play the greatest part"
I see this as THE major problem in modern Theosophy.


>The Pratyekhas are respected outwardly but are  despised inwardly
>by those of keen or spiritual appreciation....He is far below a
>true "Buddha of Compassion."
>T. Glos. p. 261
>

Well, I have read a lot of the new Tibetan works recently published
and have yet to find a single reference to this "despised inwardly"
business. A true Teacher of any school doesn't inwardly despise
any other person. I am not surprised at HPB saying such a thing,
because she always did get overly emotional on certain points. She
was trying to make a point, and used emotion overmuch. I agree with
her point (i.e., that the Bodhisattva is superior to the Pretyekha)
but not with the insulting rhetoric used.


>TRIYANA "The three vehicles across Sansara-the ocean of births,
>deaths, and rebirths are the three vehicles called Sravaka,
>Pratyekha Buddha and Bodhisattva, or the three degrees of
>Yogaship.

She left out the Tantrayana and Mantrayana, both valid paths.


> The term Triyana is also used to denote the three
>schools of mysticism-the Mahayana, Madhyimayana and Hinayana
>schools.  [Greater, Middle and Lesser Vehicles]

The Madhyimayana is not considered a true path so much as
a "school."  She missed Vajrayana, the Tibetan path which is
amazing considering how she is supposed to have known all
about Tibetan Buddhism.


>All and every
>system between the Greater and the Lesser Vehicles are considered
>"useless."

The Greater and Lesser are names given by the Greater and is
an insult to the "lesser" which is nowdays called the Theravadin
school. Even most Tibetans nowdays apologise for using the
perjorative term Lesser.


> Therefore... the Pratyekha Buddha state refers to him
>who lives all for himself and very little for others, occupying
>the middle of the vehicle, filling it all and leaving no room for
>others."  Such is the selfish candidate for Nirvana."  Theos.
>Gloss p. 344-5.
>

Seen from the viewpoint of the Bodhisattva, it does seem
a bit selfish, albeit this is a subjective call. The Pretyekha
does not consider him/herself to be selfish.


>
>While these quotes that are descriptive settle nothing, they do
>give a base for considering what Jerry offers.
>

I have been trying to explain some differences between HPB
and modern Tibetan teachings. Those who read only HPB
will come away with some distorted views of Buddhism.

Jerry S.