Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00108)

Rich

With reference to your letter following, I would like to say that you are
right about a Pratyaka Buddha, and I did not intend to equate them with Dugpas
or black magicians (as HPB described them).  Please forgive the implied
connection which was the result in hasyy formation of my sentence.  Note,
however, that I did refer to "selfish" pratyika Buddhas who "could be"
motivated oppositely to HPB (who was a true Bodhisattva, and certainly a
Buddha, according to your definition.).

I believe, however, the word Buddha actually means *one* who is enlightened.
i.e.; In the sense of reaching a state which Patanjali calls "isolation".
Both the Bodhisattva with the nature of a true, compassionate Buddha who
forsakes Nirvana) and a Pratyika Buddha (one who when enlightened enters
directly into Nirvana) would have that same state of enlightenment--but one
would have taken the unselfish vow to remain out of Nirvana and accept
continuing incarnations until the last unenlightened being has been
enlightened and passes into Nirvana--while other would selfishly enter Nirvana
immediately and ignore the suffering of all sentient beings throughout
eternity.  Of course, after the pralaya and at the beginning of the new
manvantara, those in last would be the great ones out first who become the
Dhyani Chohans, or highests "gods" while those in first would become the last
ones out to begin the entire chain of evolution, with all its ignorance and
suffering all over again.  This must be the way karma actually works.   As one
sows

----------------------------------------------------------

In a message dated 1/10/99 7:34:28 PM, Richtay@aol.com writes:

>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
>