RE: Some Musings
May 31, 2001 02:26 AM
I am of the opinion that we will find it very difficult to
compare THEOSOPHY with BUDDHISM unless we can access the original
Pali texts (as we can THEOSOPHY in English, where it was
written) and compare them IDEA to IDEA.
Unless I am much mistaken the fundamental concept that we are at
base brothers in Spirit and experience as MONADS directly
emanated from the ONE ABSOLUTE.
I would say, this gives us a UNITY at the base of our natures,
that is only shattered and confused when, instead of using that
metaphysical fact, we think and then start from the limited
knowledge we have acquired in this incarnation, which may start
from various premises, and which may still contain (unknown to
us) elements of blind faith.
Added to this I find that we are all beset by a kind of "hope."
The hope is that someone has the secret and all we need to have
is the final formula. And I find that this is also expressed as
a hope that someone else found a short-cut we can use. If we
could adopt that, then it might save us the tedious amount of
time it takes to verify a proposition's accuracy. If we are
beset with impatience, and with memories of our earlier
education, which may have pre-disposed us to certain "beliefs"
(to accept or to reject) which still remain unverified. At
least I can see this in myself, and, since I have to handle it, I
suppose others have the same problem. Being impersonal and also
universal seems to shave off this kind of froth.
In any case, H.P.B. in ISIS UNVEILED spoke of pre-vedic BODHISM
/ Buddhism and explains this means WISDOMISM and no religion.
The Buddha did not come to establish a religion, but his follower
later on set one up based on brotherhood and compassion -- and
even that did not totally stick if we read the history of those
areas in So-East Asia which had been "Buddhist" for centuries.
It merely shows that anyone can misuse a designation. So one
ought to be most careful in using ancient texts to make sure the
reader understands the dangers and problems of literalism, the
"eye doctrine" and "Head-Learning." And of translators, who
cannot help but interject their brain-views in whatever they
offer. Take me, who likes to use quotes (and give the pages
where they can be found, the selection I make is a kind of a
Language assists but is also a barrier.
Thinking of the use of the word Buddhism. By thinking of the
"proponents of Buddhism," I would mean the esoteric kind, of
which THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE is a sample. They have no
arguments with THEOSOPHY that I know of. The VOICE shows how
practical BUDDHISM and PRACTICAL THEOSOPHY would agree.
As I see it the only arguments that remain to be considered are
based on our Lower Manasic (present personal brain-mind
apparatus) grasp of language and the possible / probable meanings
that words and phrases convey (after being translated -- by Who?
With what Motives ?) And that gives vast room for confusion and
pro / contra arguments.
But if we are seeking for the ONE TRUTH of things, then our many
paths converge and differences are all reconcilable. But each
has to be given the freedom to do that for themselves. No
agreement on "forms" ever stands very long. [ This is the
problem with the T.S. as an organization, and the T.S. as a
vehicle for the ever-living ethical practice of BROTHERHOOD. ]
LITERALISM is quite useless ( S.D. II 767 )
All good wishes,
From: Mark Kusek [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 2:34 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: Some Musings
I've really enjoyed your posts of late and I sympathize with you
to explain the more abstruse buddhist doctrines. There is a lot
throwing and quote slinging going on here.
That aside, I'd also like to tell you that I thoroughly enjoyed
the GV Universe model.
Thanks so much for taking the time to write all that stuff down.
really appreciate the study.
I'd love to see you write similar works putting forth your views
"Theosophy and Buddhism" and "Theosophy and Jung."
Both of which subjects frame my questions for you in this post.
On the subject of "Theosophy and Buddhism" I'd like to ask you
1) Given your idea of the "Divine Monad" as a non-dual "Ground"
"source of both nirvana and samsara" (ie, time-space system of
is it not possible that the appearance or manifestation of that
ray(s)" within the system can be likened to an abstract point(s)?
Further, I've heard mention in certain Buddhist teachings of the
"buddha seed(s)" or the 'potential of emptiness to realize
at the core of every sentient being. Could this not be the
'ray-point' or 'ray-spark' consciously seen from within the
system by an individual sentient being looking within?
Could not this abstract point be that around which the skandhas
Could not the whole presence of sentient beings in the realm of
Demi-Gods (as depicted in the traditional Buddhist 'Wheel of
that they are all still identified with the abstract point as a
individuality? Is that not the very distinction that defines the
between a Buddha and a being still in these realms (whether a
planetary spirit or what have you?)
I keep thinking about Van der Leeuw's book "The Conquest of
context and his chapter on the 'Relative and the Absolute' here.
it (he asked book throwing)?
In that work, Van der Leeuw describes the beginningless and
evolutionary cycle of kingdoms and individuals as nevertheless
the "world of the relative" and being distinctly different from a
of the Absolute'. This, he says, requires a turning within (ie,
'world-image') into and through the core of conscious identity
of the Abyss encountered there into what he calls the "world of
Forgive me all these dualistic terms. This is why I usually
Abyss. Emptiness at the core! Void/Plenum.
I think there is a lot of serious clinging to the notion of the
of the Self or Ego (with a capital "E") as a glorious and
without realizing that it too is, in the end, merely a mayavic
the Empty Absolute, no matter how exalted. It's a way to preserve
a noble (re: relatively better than the personality but still
distinct) holy thing to strive after. This is OK in and of
lead to progress along the continuum in the "world of the
'progress', however, is unending. A "realization of the Absolute"
radically different. It is a departure from the "world of the
altogether, if that can possibly be expressed in words!
Not to mention the fact that all we can hope to do in the context
these emails to each other is to utilize the mechanism of the
conscious personal ego to cognize all of this. Geez!
Anyhoo, any thoughts in response to these points?
On the subject of "Theosophy and Jung":
2) I would love to hear your perspective on child development of
embodied personal ego from a synthetic
even throw in a little Object-Relations Theory.
For example, how would you equate Jung's notion of the 'ego-self
terminuses to Theosophy, especially in its motion from
a threshold to various degrees of consciousness in the normal
Jung speaks in some of his books about what he calls the "primary
#1" or the "core ego" around which another, later, experiential,
historic 'second ego' builds up or (dare I say) 'aggregates'.
(originally unconscious) 'core ego" from a Theosophic
living thing in every one of us. It's especially pertinent since
accessible to direct experience once you turn within and get past
historical identifications you have with your current sense of
How does the emergence from the unconscious of this body
personal human ego (through a process, say, like
simultaneously also create the sense of "not -I" or "others" or
that Van der Leeuw characterizes as our "world image?"
Further, what, if any, are the Theosophical equivalents of the
the shadow and the persona? What about the archetypes?
Finally, what of the Buddhist - Jung dialogues that have been
years that have the Buddhists saying to Jung that even the "Self"
transcended, that even the Jungian "Self" is empty of inherent
is a Theosophical perspective on that?
I'm musing and skimming along several topics, but I thought it'd
ask you these things.
Minor comments below:
> "If you examine this issue closely, you are led to the
> world that appears to you actually does not appear to anyone
> implies that the world that each of us lives in is in fact
> own sensory awareness ... By the very process of purifying
> the appearance of the world is also purified."
As with the world, so with the sense of "I".
> The esoteric philosophy states there is no such thing as
> JERRY: THIS IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY!!! Why do you say this
> insist on individuality???
> The belief in separateness arises solely in the consciousness
Does it? Remember, we are now in embodied, conscious 'kama-manas'
Does not the belief in separateness arise simultaneously with the
> JERRY: The "belief in separateness" is a whole lot more
> kama-manas and it starts with atma (and I believe that I am
> for ALL Buddhist schools). The whole idea of a Triad is a maya.
> duad and there is NO triad because all aggregates are unreal.
> BE-NESS first separates into Space and Motion for a manvantaric
> immediately we are in maya and just as immediately we have
Given that HPB and the Mahatmas stated that all they taught was
this Solar System alone, we could say that we immediately (or
thereafter) also have multiplicity. Surely One Solar Logos is
Hence: individuality/multiplicity/ignorance arise more or less
"One" ever One within the relative field of evolution except as a
I think the term "ignorance" can be troublesome to some when
principles. It has some negative connotations in a relative
from some angles to be self willed, or at least agreed upon by
as a rule of the game.
The Hindu literature has Brahman, at creation, saying something
forth a part of myself and yet remain". The part of himself that
(a unity in multiplicity) promptly forgets all about him! This to
ignorance. Ignorance or ignoring? It's a paradox.
> Only indivisible (partless) monads are real.
Monads (plural?) - Perhaps in their intrinsic unity and emptiness
real, but are you saying here that they are also so as inherently
enduringly separate "individual units?" To my experience they all
the One disappears. Then Mark reassembles and asks Jerry to
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as:
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application