Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00103)

Thanks Jerry for your responses below to my questions. I appreciate 
them. I will try to read and study what you write and try to give 
some replies in a day or so.

In the meantime, regarding what you wrote to the effect:

"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)."

Can you give the page number and edition of THE INNER GROUP TEACHINGS 
where it is said that each princile is on a plane?

Also where does she tell us that atma is the only principle that 
survives the pralaya?

Thanks in advance for the page numbers, etc.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc 

--- In theos-talk@y..., "Gerald Schueler" <gschueler@e...> wrote:
> <<<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.
> 
> --