Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00099)

<<<Jerry, I'm puzzled by several of your comments.
First of all, where did HPB specifically say she had
been initiated into Mahayana Buddhism?>>>

Daniel, her Voice of the Silence clearly shows such an initiation. Also, read page 80 of Cranston (which I would have thought you had already done) which contains her written intention of going to Tibet as a "neophyte." Why the whole Tibetan business, if not initiation into its teachings?


<<<Secondly, what do you mean by "objective emptiness"? Where are you deriving this concept from? Is this in HPB's writings? >>>

Daniel, the core of maya is our subject-object dualism. This dualism exists on all seven planes, and even though it is fuzzy on the three upper planes, it still exists. There is a subjective sense of I and an objective sense of Not-I, even on the three upper planes. There the subjective I is in a mental state called samadhi (actually, Tzongkhapa tells us that there are infinite levels/degrees of samadhi) and the outer objective "world" is emptiness or formless spirit. Blavatsky uses the term sunyata (translated by Tibetans as emptiness), but fails to clearly contrast it with its polar opposite, swabhava. Blavatsky says a lot about the lower four planes, and very little about the upper three planes. The idea of samadhi being the subjective state corresponding to emptiness comes from HH the Dali Lama and other modern Tibetans. I should also point out here, that older translators often translated sunyata as "Absolute" and I suspect that this is where Blavatsky got the idea of referring to the upper three planes as an Absolute.



<<Jerry, what do you mean Atma is located on the upper three cosmic planes? Where is this teaching to be found in HPB's writings?>>>

In INNER GROUP TEACHINGS she clearly says that each principle is on a plane. All of her definitions of atma suggest that she considered it to be spiritual (which is a Hindu, not a Buddhist, view) which would put it on one of the three upper planes. She tells us that it is the only principle that survives the pralaya (when the lower four planes go into sleep mode). It is said to have buddhi as its vehicle, and if we think of buddhi as intuition, then buddhi would be on the causal plane, above manas which is surely on the mental plane, which means that atma must be on the third plane. Thus, using her definitions and some logic, atma is on the third plane, buddhi on the fourth, manas of the fifth, and kama on the sixth. The lower three principles then must all be on the etheric - one each on the three upper subplanes of the physical plane. This is pretty much in agreement with A. E. Powell and others. It is logically consistant. And finally, it agrees with my own meditative experiences.


<<<You and GdeP may agree that there are only relative absolutes but since Peter was discussing HPB's views, where do we find Blavatsky in agreement with this idea?>>>

Where do we find her against this idea? I have found nothing at all in her writings that is against, or in opposition to, anything at all that I have said. All of the quotes that you present can be interpreted (should be interpreted?) in the logical manner in which I have outlined, and that G de Purucker has also detailed. By ignoring key words in her sentences, like radiance or ray or emanation etc, you jump to the illogical conclusion that atma is permanent. No one can present an outline of Blavatsky's evolutionary thesis, in their own words, that includes a permanent atma. It can't be done, and I notice that no one has even tried to do so. Atma is the central component of the atma-buddhi-manas or pilgrim that evolves through the manvantaras. It simply has to change.


<<<Jerry, it is fine that you hold these various views but I believe Peter was trying to understand what HPB's views are.
Daniel>>>

And I am explaining to you what I think Blavatsky's views are. I am NOT trying to say which view is correct. I am, however, saying that mine is the more logical, and also that mine is in agreement with Buddhism (the idea of a permanent atma is rejected by all schools of Buddhism), for whatever you may think its worth. The view that atma is permanent goes not against just me and G de P, but also against every school of Buddhism (which doesn't, I suppose, necessarily make it "right" - we can always argue over right and wrong later on).

Jerry S.

--