Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00145)

Jan 12th 1999

Even if the subject of the PRATYEKHA Buddha and the PASSI buddha
were not taken up in the S.D. there are hints there that relate
to them when we start with the definitions we are given in

VOICE p. 47 footnote at the end of THE TWO PATHS

THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, p. 261 - HPB devotes 1/2 a page to
explaining this
	(idem.)		p. 345 (top of the page) under "Trikaya"

		"this 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. Glossary P. 232	Nirvana,  Nirvani

MAHATMA LETTERS, p. 115  [ XVI ] The Master explains the
difference between the "Passi" or "Pratyekha"  [ the perfection
of the "personal vehicle" ] and the "Amita" or "Amrita" Buddha
which is the perfection of the "immortal vehicle."  This
distinction is made clear in KEY
p. 113 bottom

The forced return from Nirvana of such MONADS as take this
temporary isolation or "Liberation Path" is described in
suggestive passages in THE SECRET DOCTRINE
See:  SD I 371 329-330 571  SD II 79-80 109-110 233fn

In the Magazine THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT (Bombay) references to
this are made in
T Mvt. Vol. 10,p. 174;  T Mvt. Vol. 14, p. 11  Also in THE ARYAN
PATH (Bombay ULT) Vol. 1, p. 656.

In Mr. Judge's COLLECTED ARTICLES edited and published by
Theosophy Company references will be found in  Vol. 1, p. 9, 390
to the state of the personality that, perfected but selfish in
personality, adopts Nirvana and severs its connection with
mankind for a long time, until karma forces it to reunite and
re-enter the stream of evolution again.

In a collection of Mr. Judge's ANSWERS from the THEOSOPHICAL
FORUM (Theos. Company) p. 4. The distinction between a Nirvanee
and a JIVANMUKTA is made clear. [ see also T. Glossary p. 165 )

Nirvana is called a Maya	SD II 615, [ a personal state -  SD II
610 ]

Blavatsky, COLLECTED WORKS, Vol. 6, p. 248-9	the ultimate fate of
the MONAD is discussed.

MOKSHA  ( Liberation) T Glos 216,  ISIS II 116-117 286 320-322


I hope this proves to be of help.

Dallas

> From: Bazzer
> Sent:	Monday, January 11, 1999 11:50 AM
> Subject: RE: Mindless quotes

As far as one is aware. . . .

Nowhere in "The Secret Doctrine" is Pratyeka Buddha ever mention

ed.  Not
even once.

Conclusions?!

Best wishes,
Paul

Rich:

<<> Pratyekabuddhas are considered higher than Arhats,

Paul:

> Or, by reverse logic, Arhats are considered lower than Pratyeka
Buddhas.
> Yes?  Well, no.  This is complete nonsense.

> From "The Voice of the Silence".
>
> Concerning Pratyeka-Buddha (Glossary to Part II):
>
> "Caring nothing for the woes of mankind or to help it, but only
for their
> own *bliss*, they enter Nirvana and  - disappear from the sight
and hearts
> of men. In Northern Buddhism a 'Pratyeka Buddha' is a synonym
of spiritual
> Selfishness" (Glossary to Part II).
> Further, (Glossary to Part III):
>
> "(32).  In the Northern Buddhist phraseology all the great
Arhats, Adepts
> and Saints are called Buddhas.
>
> (33). A *Bodhisattva* is, in the hierarchy, less than a
"perfect Buddha."
> In the exoteric parlance these two are very much confused.  Yet
the innate
> and right popular perception, owing to that self-sacrifice, has
placed a
> Bodhisattva higher in its reverence than a Buddha."
>
> (34).  This same popular reverence calls "Buddhas of
Compassion" those
> *Bodhisattvas* who, having reached the rank of an Arhat (i.e.,
have
> completed the *fourth* or *seventh* Path), refuse to pass into
> the Nirvanic
> state or 'don the *Dharmakaya* robe and cross to the other
shore,' as it
> would then become beyond their power to assist men even so
little as Karma
> permits. . . . . .>>
>
> Paul!  You can quote well, but you have really confused all the
> above terms.
> And your quotes, out of context, actually confuse matters more,
> because you
> haven't read any Buddhism, you only have HPB's scattered
> definitions.  You are
> content to parrot HPB word-for-word, and then throw down the
> gauntlet as if
> you've proven your point.  Quotes from HPB, however, really
only
> prove that
> you own her books and can read them.
>
> Here's a different, "overview" method, and you will see both
the
> skill and the
> idiosyncrasy of HPB.  This is my paraphrasing of Buddhist
> definitions, and I
> invite other students of Buddhism to back me up or show that I
am wrong:
>
> (1) Arhats are graduates of the Hinayana (small vehicle) path.
They are
> considered "freed from impurities" and thus freed from the
wheel
> of rebirth.
> They are free to go on to Nirvana.  "Arhat" literally means
"one
> who has slain
> the enemies."  Arhats are NOT enlightened, not omniscient, only
"free."
>
> (2) Pratyekabuddhas *are* considered higher adepts, by
*BUDDHISM*
> (which is
> what I wrote, if you bothered to check).  These beings are
considered
> enlightened (meaning far-seeing and wise) as well as free from
bondage
> karmically.  Their name means literally "prati-eka" (by
oneself) "buddha"
> (enlightened).  But they did not put in the lifetimes of
> compassion to develop
> the higher virtues of skill-in-means and compassion to be able
to
> help others.
> Thus, in a spiritual sense, they are wise but selfish.  Not in
> the sense of
> selfish as in "hurting others" but in the sense of "leaving
them to their
> fate" and proceeding on to Nirvana.  No one in Buddhism,
southern
> or northern,
> worships the Pratyekabuddhas, though both traditions mention
them
> as existing.
>
> (3)  Bodhisattva.  A "wisdom-being," one who has taken a vow to
become a
> Buddha, and is variously progressed along that path.  Many of
us
> on this list
> have taken the vow, but I suspect we are more "embryonic
bodhisattvas."
> Still, our heart is in the right place.  Certain mythological
> bodhisattvas are
> worshipped by the masses, because they are considered to be
*just
> about* to
> become Buddhas (like Maitreya), or because they have been
> bodhisattvas so long
> they have developed tremendous powers, nearly equal to a full
Buddha
> (Manjushri, Avalokiteshvara).
>
> (4)  A Buddha, a *samyak-sambuddha*, a "fully enlightened
Master"
> is the only
> one who, having freed himself, has the ability to free others
in whatever
> their condition, language, culture, race, or psychological
> problems.  These
> beings are worshipped.  These beings are rare, and are said to
> incarnate very
> seldom, perhaps once a kalpa.  And a kalpa, by anyone's
defition,
> is a long,
> long time.  Because they are so precious, their writings are
> preserved very
> carefully, because that may be all we have for a long time to
> come.  HPB calls
> the recent Buddha "the highest adept ever to appear on the
planet."
>
> What I have written above is all from BUDDHIST points of view,
not
> Theosophical.  Now, having gotten some authentic Buddhism, we
> compare to HPB's
> quotes provided by Paul, and see that in some cases she is
> talking loosely.
>
> When HPB speaks of "the great Arhats," she is not referring to
all Arhats,
> only the great ones.  These are Buddhas.  But you couldn't know
> that unless
> you had read some Buddhism outside of HPB.
>
> Next quote: HPB first says bodhisattvas are lower than Buddhas,
but the
> exoteric masses rightly put them above Buddhas.  This is wrong,
in theory,
> according to HPB, but both beings a masters of compassion and
> self-sacrifice.
> Therefore, in this paragraph, HPB is emphasizing that fact.
She still
> believes Buddhas are higher than bodhisattvas.  She says so.
>
> The final quote also shows that Arhats are lower, then those
who
> "pass on" are
> bodhisattvas, and those who complete the goal are Buddhas.  It
> doesn't mention
> pratyekabuddhas at all.  So it's not a terribly helpful quote.
>
> I state again that HPB is not making up these terms, she is
borrowing them
> from source material, which 99% of Theosophists haven't
bothered
> to read for
> themselves.  It causes a great deal of confusion, and
embarrasses us to
> inquirers who have studied other traditions.  Because all we
can
> say is "we
> have faith in HPB" and we can't prove why.  One reason we know
she's
> authentic, however, is because we see HPB time and again using
> technical terms
> "correctly," the way the native traditions use them.  Then she
> adds more, the
> esoteric side.
>
> Rich
>
theos-talk@theosophy.com
>
consisting of
> "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to
theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.
>


theos-talk@theosophy.com

of