Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00097)

In a message dated 1/10/99 1:05:56 AM, Leon wrote:

<<How could Crowley accept those other "yanas" when they were so
opposed to his own separatists and selfish views?  I thought he disagreed with
HPB because he was, by his own choice, the direct opposite of a
Bodhisattva--as only a Dugpa black magician, or a selfish Hinayana "Pratyeka
Buddha" could be.   One, believing in total altruism and selflessness at risk
of one's own life, and the other, believing in complete selfishness at risk of
everyone else's. >>

This misleading statement equates Dugpas with Pratyekabuddhas -- something HPB
*never* did.   In all the Buddhist literature, a Pratyekabuddha is nothing
like what HPB describes as a Black Magician.  Pratyekabuddhas are considered
higher than Arhats, because Pratyekabuddhas are self-enlightened, without
needing the crutch of a teacher.  However, they did not cultivate charity and
compassion to the degree required to possess the full abilities of a Buddha,
who is marvellously equipped to lead and educate others.

Pratyekabuddhas are NOT considered evil, harmful, or agreeable to sacrificing
others to gain their way.  (I defy anyone to produce a Buddhist quote that
says otherwise.)  Pratyekabuddhas are, rather, known for their withdrawal from
the world and its disturbances.  They are not known as antagonistic to the
world -- if that were the case, how could they be considered enlightened?
That *is* what the Sanskrit word "buddha" means.

We need to be careful with loaded, technical terms-- or we will end up in a
great deal of confusion, and embarass Blavatsky's teachings by attributing to
her things she knew much better than to say.

Rich