Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00158)

Hi, Jerry:

In order to salvage Brigitte’s good name, I should say
that I was the one who penned the ignorant comments to
which you are answering. Thanks for your replies.

JERRY: Agreed that it is hard to interpret. And I
agree that manas is below the alayavijnana. I am
relying somewhat on Suzuki's intro to the sutra. My
interpretation (for what its worth) can be found at
http://www.schuelers.com/Theosophy/docs/atman.htm

Regrettably I skipped Suzuki’s intro and read the main
text. I have seen interpretations by other authors,
though, including Yasutani roshi, and my comments were
based on that.

JERRY: Yes, atman is roughly equivalent to the
ego/self in Buddhism. According to Suzuki, in his
intro to the Lankavatara Sutra, atman is "ego
substance" and this is pretty much what I find across
the board with Buddhist writers. Blavatsky herself was
forced to accept the lousy translations available to
her. For example, she gives a quote from the
Avatamsaka Sutra, from a chapter titled "the Supreme
Atman (Soul) as 
manifested in the character of the Arhats and
Pratyeka-Buddhas" (p 423 of CW Vol XIV). Now, I just
happen to have read a new copy of this sutra
translated by Thomas Cleary, and trust me, there is no
references anywhere to any "Supreme Atman" in Cleary's
translation. Not to mention that this work is non
other than the famous Hwa Yen Sutra of Chinese
Buddhism. With translations like the ones she had
available to her, its a wonder that she was able to do
as well as she did.

Thanks for clearing that up. I have always been
confused by the apparent acceptance of what Buddhists
call the “crypto soul” in Thesophy.

JERRY: ALL schools of Tibetan Buddhism accept that
humans can be reborn 
as animals (and as hungry ghosts, and hell-beings, and
gods).

I said not all schools of Buddhism accept that, not
that all school of specifically Tibetan Buddhism do
not. There are Zen masters who would probably laugh
at the idea of men becoming animals. This idea is
anyway considered by some to be metaphorical. Winston
Churchill resembled a bulldog in the eyes of some
people, but he was not literally a dog.

Whether this idea is accepted in esoteric Tibetan
schools is open to question. I do not follow the DL
and personally do not care what he says.

Jerry: Blavatsky … discusses the six kingdoms of
Buddhism, but then says that the door into 
the animal kingdom is closed - does this mean that we
can still be reborn as hell-beings and hungry-ghosts
(pretas)? or are those doors closed as well - she
never says.

She considers “hell” to be a degraded form of humanity
here on earth. But then she says that the mediecal
eighth sphere is situated in the moon and that hell
(Avici) is located there.
Jerry S.

JERRY: I agree with this quote. But tell me, what does
it mean then, to say that the mineral monad becomes a
vegetable monad, which becomes a human monad, and so
on? If the monads don't evolve, what does?

The idea is not that the mineral monad becomes a
vegetable monad. The different kingdoms of monads are
supposed to be degrees of differentiation of the
primordial cosmic matter (Mulaprakriti), the first
three being elemental kingdoms. Afterdifferentiation
occurs the monads do not change. This is “explained”
(I use the word advisedly) in FIVE YEARS OF THEOSOPHY.
Mysteriously some impulse of some kind migrates from
kingdom to kingdom, but this is not made clear.

Also, monads as differentiated entities are not
eternal. It is the primordial cosmic substance from
which they are differentiated which is eternal. All
differentiations are supposed to be resolved back into
unity at the time of Maha Pralaya, so the theory goes.

JERRY: I don't know how much of Magic you know, Peter,
but the technique mentioned here concerns what is
called Rising on the Planes, an astral traveling
technique that is well known in magic circles, and was

taught in the Golden Dawn (Westcott was not only a
member of Blavatsky's inner group, but one of the
chief founders of the Golden Dawn).

Theosophists generally are opposed to anything
practical, and are members of the Read Only School. 
The way it has been explained to me, eyeballing ink
marks on a piece of paper and therefore employing only
the Eyes is the superior Heart Doctrine, whereas
trying to get to the heart of the matter through
direct experience is the vastly inferior Eye Doctrine.
When I hear that I am tempted to say “Come again?” 
But then I think better of it and keep silent. 
Hearing it once is quite enough.

Rising on the Planes is a stripped down version of the
ancient Merkabah meditation, which HPB mentions
briefly. Its (original) purpose is to commune with
angels and other superhuman beings.

Steve


--- Gerald Schueler <gschueler@earthlink.net> wrote:
> <<<<<<Jerry: “As far as the Lankavatara (a Mind Only
> sutra translated by D.T. Suzuki) is concerned, it
> addresses citta and locates it between alaya and
> manas.
> [Brigitte]I am not sure you are right about that. 
> All the interpretations I have seen put manas just
> below alayavijnana. The lankavatara is hard to
> interpret.>>>
> 
> JERRY: Agreed that it is hard to interpret. And I
> agree that manas is below the alayavijnana. I am
> relying somewhat on Suzuki's intro to the sutra. My
> interpretation (for what its worth) can be found at
> http://www.schuelers.com/Theosophy/docs/atman.htm
> 
> 
> <<<Blavatsky rejected the Madhyamika, while at the
> same time trying to claim Tzongkhapa.>>>
> 
> JERRY: Yes. She adopted a lot of Mind Only
> (Yogacarya or Cittamatra) positions, while
> acknowledging that Tzongkhapa (founder of the Gelug
> Middle Way School) was a reincarnation of the
> Buddha. Now, even the Gelug's don't go that far, but
> rather consider him to have been an incarnation of
> the famous bodhisattva, Manjushri.
> 
> 
> <<< The Lankavatara uses alaya in much the same way
> that Blavatsky uses atman ? >>>
> 
> JERRY: Yes, atman is roughly equivalent to the
> ego/self in Buddhism. According to Suzuki, in his
> intro to the Lankavatara Sutra, atman is "ego
> substance" and this is pretty much what I find
> across the board with Buddhist writers. Blavatsky
> herself was forced to accept the lousy translations
> available to her. For example, she gives a quote
> from the Avatamsaka Sutra, from a chapter titled
> "the Supreme Atman (Soul) as manifested in the
> character of the Arhats and Pratyeka-Buddhas" (p 423
> of CW Vol XIV). Now, I just happen to have read a
> new copy of this sutra translated by Thomas Cleary,
> and trust me, there is no references anywhere to any
> "Supreme Atman" in Cleary's translation. Not to
> mention that this work is non other than the famous
> Hwa Yen Sutra of Chinese Buddhism. With translations
> like the ones she had available to her, its a wonder
> that she was able to do as well as she did.
> 
> 
> <<<<<<<<<
> Jerry: “ the Madhyamika Prasangika
> is generally considered to be the highest 
> school, and this school would reject most of her
> core
> teachings as being a form of absolutism" 
> [Brigitte]Who says the Madhyamika is the “highest
> school”? Who could presume to make such a
> judgement?>>>>>>
> 
> JERRY: Who else - the Madhyamikas do. You can also
> find this in the works of HH the Dali Lama, who is
> also a Madhyamika. Jeffery Hopkins and other
> translators state this as well. I am not so sure
> that the other schools would agree. Probably the
> most famous critic of absolutism was Tzongkhapa,
> also a Madhymika (meaning Middle Way or Centrist).
> 
> 
> <<<<<<Jerry: “ she with that opposes Buddhism and
> Hinduism, which allow for humans to reimbody as
> animals"
> {Brigitte] Not every school of Buddhism takes that
> idea seriously.
> Brigitte>>>>>>
> 
> JERRY: ALL schools of Tibetan Buddhism accept that
> humans can be reborn as animals (and as hungry
> ghosts, and hell-beings, and gods). This idea comes
> right from Buddha in the sutras, and so I would be
> surprised to find a single school anywhere that
> opposed it as Blavatsky did. She discusses the six
> kingdoms of Buddhism, but then says that the door
> into the animal kingdom is closed - does this mean
> that we can still be reborn as hell-beings and
> hungry-ghosts (pretas)? or are those doors closed as
> well - she never says.
> 
> Jerry S.
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com