Theos-Talk Archives (May 2001 Message tt00068)

<<<Jerry,
There was not one single reference to Buddhism - neither affirming nor
refuting - in my post to you. Please read what I actually wrote.>>>>


Dear Peter, what you "actually wrote" was a quote from myself and your own
response to it, and what I actually wrote was my own response to your
response. Buddhism or no.


<<<I did not invoke the SD or the Mahatma Letters to refute Buddhism.>>>

Maybe not, but you did invoke it to refute me, and I was talking from a
Buddhist viewpoint. Believe it or not, some Thesophists think that Theosophy
and Buddhism are saying the same things. On the surface, it doesn't look
like it, does it?


<<<Nor did I "rah rah rah" at the idea of individuality.>>>

Peter, your first key/quote said "* acquired individuality, first by
natural impulse, and then by self-induced and self-devised efforts (checked
by its Karma)" Now, this key itself, when taken out of context, appears to
be a rah rah of individuality. You presented it, and so I have to assume
that you believe in a rah rah for individuality (most Theosophists do, but
that doesn't make it right). But your denial above suggests that you don't
actually rah rah individuality, so now I am wondering why you gave this
key/quote at all?


<<<Nor did I say that Theosophy was Buddhism (especially as I don't believe
it is).>>>

I suppose it isn't. However, Blavatsky was supposed to have been initiated
in Tibet by Tibetans and at least some of her Masters were Tibetan (I don't
want to go into detailed history here, though). She said a lot of good
things about Buddha and about Tzongkapa and some others, which would lead a
student to think that she thought highly of Buddhism herself.


<<<Nor did I say *I* had any desire to be a 'winner' or believe myself to be
a 'loser'>>>

Peter, you stated "The 'winner' progresses onwards to higher cycles of
development." I don't know about your desires for yourself, but you seem to
believe that the goal of Theosophy is to be a winner and to achieve a nice
golden chain instead of an iron one (or am I somehow hopelessly
mis-interpreting your entire posting?).


<<<The above are all imaginings of your own. They have nothing to do with
what I wrote.>>>

Peter, please reword your entire post, because I obviously am unable to see
what you really meant to say. Did you mean to just give me some quotes from
the Source? If so, then these quotes show apparent conflicts with Buddhism,
so maybe they really aren't the same at all?


<<<The key ideas you responded to are not mine. They are H.P. Blavatsky's
and the Mahatma KH's. They are simply extracts from the qouted passages
from the SD and the Mahatma Letters. >>>

I am aware of the two quotes and where they are from. One of the problems
that I keep having with the use of quotes is that sometimes when taken out
of context I find I do have problems, and I noted these in my response.
Please don't take my responses personally, which you seem to be doing. I am
simply trying to defuse the ideas your quotes seem to be presenting, and
showing apparent conflicts with Buddhism.


<<<Please tell us if they agree with your assertion that "According to the
Secret Doctine.... you don't have to learn or do anything except keep
reincarnating for a few billion years and then you will become perfect.">>>

I don't see where your quotes answer my assertion one way or the other. And
I also have no problem with the quotes per se. For example, your first key,
which you took out of context, is applicable to "every Soul" (mentioned at
the beginning of the para) and indeed, I agree, that the "soul" undergoes
pilrimages and acquires individuality. What I am saying is that this same
Soul, once having attained individuality and self-consciousness then has to
attain Gnosis and spiritual enlightenment. But nowhere in any of your quotes
does it say that evolution will only occur if we consciously expend effort
to it. Nor in anything Blavatsky ever wrote that I know of. Evolution, as
she defines and describes it, is a naturally occurring karmic process.

There are, in point of fact, two ways that we can evolve. We can do so by
treading the Path, which is a fast way but requires the expenditure of great
effort. Or we can do so by letting our own Kundalini impel us forward
naturally, as it has been doing and is doing and will continue to do. The
latter requires little effort - how much personal effort has the average
person on this Earth expended toward their own personal evolutionary
development, would you say? I would say, not much. Yet here they are, living
human beings on Globe D during Round 4 and Race 5 all the same. Peter, you
will need better quotes if you want to contradict my "assertion."

Daniel recently questioned me on this same idea, and I responded to him
earlier today. Please see my post to Daniel on this, and then take up the
challenge that I gave. I would be delighted to see proof that I am wrong
here.

Jerry S.