Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00577)

<<<Hello everyone. As a meditator I'm following the various discussions here
with great interest, but just have a couple of questions: the philosophies
here area mix of Buddhist and Hindu thought, but I don't see any mention of
actual meditation or working with View here. Is Theosophy purely a
philosophical pursuit?>>>

It is, I think, mostly theoretical. Practical things that are encouraged are
developing ethics, trying to be compassionate to others, and developing
manas/human mind by reading and studying of the literature (ie karma yoga,
and perhaps a small introduction to raja yoga to help control thinking).


<<< Regarding a number of conversations regarding the Atman, etc - perhaps
it would be easier to talk about these things in the same way that we have
to do within mahamudra/Dzongchen, that when describing 'levels' of reality
or duality/non-duality things must be talked about from 2 different
viewpoints to make any sense: that from the side of Ultimate reality (how
the base reality 'sees' reality, or from the side of Conventional reality
(how we view things from our own reality looking 'out'. To try to encomapss
both views in any conversation is extremely hard. >>>

You would be surprised (maybe?) to find out that many Theosophists neither
understand nor appreciate the 'levels of reality' business that you mention.


<<<Bearing this in mind, from the view of Ultimate reality, how do
Theosophists describe the state of Oneness? Let me explain in very broad
terms;>>>

Most don't. They simply parrot the words of Blavatsky (who did, I think,
write on many levels). That said, most Theosophists do not meditate and have
not experienced spirituality or ultimate reality at all, and so can only
approach it from purely a manas viewpoint. For a good example, you will find
Theosophists talking about Individuality and Absolute in the same breath.


<<<In Christianity for example we might say that although Christians believe
in one-ness with God, they tend to think of it as us all being *brought
together* in oneness in God, a bit like the consituents of a Xmas
pudding.>>>>

I think that many Theosophists share this interpretation.


<<< In Buddhism we think of oneness as being just that, that the our
existence and reality here is a 'misconception' on the part of Ultimate
Awareness itself. That isn't to say that we feel that this reality does not
exist, it has a nominal state which neither does nor does not exist - it
simply lacks any self-essence. As has been said here before, we are the
waves, it is the sea, and we can't say that the waves are the same as or
different from the sea itself. We in Dzongchen regard this reality as being
a radiance or adornment of the base reality that is neither the same as nor
different to the base reality.>>>

This is my own view, and I maintain that it was Blavatsky's as well, but
that she had a hard time articulating it. Dzogchen and mahamudra are
considered to contain the highest Tibetan Buddhist teachings, and were only
given out to a few worthy students, until recently.


<<< The reason that I'm asking is that - as I understand that you all
believe that this oneness does exist in one way or another - if you are
talking about the nature of Ultimate existence then we can't say that it
contains *anything* apart from the basic Ultimate reality, everything else
is our own labeling and misidentification. We can't say (from the Ultimate
viewpoint) really that there are levels of existence, selves, souls, etc.
Does this idea have any counterparts in your philosophy? Some posters are
happy to regard all as oneness whereas others want to maintain the idea that
there can be an immortal soul and a continuing self - is this common? >>>

Yes, it is common, because these folks don't understand Dzogchen or
mahamudra, nor do they, apparently, much care. In order to make Theosophy
dovetail with Buddhism, we have to let the four lower planes be samsara
(conditional reality) and the upper three planes be nirvana (ultimate
reality) and place Blavatsky's Monad beyond both of these and thus consider
it to be totally non-dual. Now, personally, I believe that Theosophy can be
interpreted in just this way, but most Theosophists don't want to give up
their cherished views regarding atman.


<<<From what I've read so far Blavatsky's knowledge came from a middle level
view, probably Mahamudra, whereas the final, complete view is found in
Dzongchen and elsewhere. Are there any mentions of Dzongchen in Theosophy
literature?>>>

No, there is no mention of it, but Blavatsky did give out a few of its
highest teachings - for example that both matter and spirit are maya. But
she wrote/taught mostly about the sutrayana, and totally ignored the
tantrayana/vajrayana. Her Secret Doctrine, for example, is purely from a
sutra approach - one that regards an evolutionary conditional reality and a
karmic Path to enlightenment through wisdom and means.
She taught the slow evolutionary Path of sutrayana, rather than the instant
Path of Dzogchen.


<<<I've also seen mentions of esoteric knowledge that is meant to echo
Buddhist and Hindu meditation and thought coming from ancient Egypt. As an
ex-student of Egyptian texts (and considering that it's now felt that
*every* text is known to researchers, where was the Egyptian content from
and what is it's nature?
Kind regards,
Ian Harling>>>

Have you seen or read my book Egyptian Magic (Llewellyn Pub, originally
titled Coming Into The Light)? In it, I translated several books of the dead
(so-called) with the assumption that they were esoteric/magic texts for the
living. I got this idea some years ago, from W. W. Westcott. The
translations took me 8 years (I am not an Egyptologist, but I did use the
standard Egyptology dictionaries). They had their won universe model, or
magical universe, which they believed was in the image and likeness of the
Nile Valley. When cities or towns are mentioned, for example, they could
refer to physical towns or to their subtle town-counterparts in the Dwat.
Many standard translations are in error, for example Neter-Khert is usually
translated as necropolis referring to a local cemetery, whereas the words
literally mean "god-realm" in much the same way as devachan.

Jerry S.