Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00333)

<<<Yes, I can see what you are trying to say. My own suggestion would be that people go and have a look for themselves at what Purucker actually says and ask themselves whether it agrees with the Madhaymaka viewpoint, as you suggest it does.>>>

OK Peter. But I do think that such "agreement" lies deeper than on the surface. And actually he is probably more in line with the Mind Only school than the Middle Way.


<<<Purucker writes about pemanently evolving entities. The phase of manifestation they are passing through may be temporary and
therefore relative, for example, animal stage, human stage, Gods, Cosmic Entities, yet he regards them as 'permanently' evolving entities nontheless.>>>

You bring up an interesting point. While Buddhism teaches that no "beings" are permanent, they do teach that the mental continuum itself is permanent. They often equate it to a mirror that is dirty through ignorance and so on, so that the Path is all about cleaning and restoring it back to its original nature. The Mind Only teach that Buddha Nature is permanent, and this seems to equate to the indivisible Monad as a consciousness-center as described by G de Purucker.


<<<He says that each entity learns through evolution to be able to manifest more and more of its innate spiritual potential. It is this ability to manifest its potential that defines the kind of entity it is during any phase of manifestation. Yes, each entity may be part of a larger entity & so on, but according to Purucker, these same entities, of whatever level, go on and on and on for ever in their evolutionary growth. They may have a rest in Nirvana and Paranirvana, but only to continue their ever expanding growth as "entities" in the next Manvantara.>>>>

OK, but if we take all of this learning and progressing business as conventional reality, then there is no problem. However, I do disagree with Purucker when he says that evolution is spiral instead of circular, because spiral implies a linear upward progression that is IMHO purely mayavic.


<<<<"Every manifesting entity in the universe is a consciousness or monad. Thus our sun is a solar monad, a divine being in its highest parts; similarly every planetary chain is an individual, an entity of less spiritual magnitude than a sun, but a cosmic individual nontheless. Every atom is likewise during its manifestation an imbodied individual - a god at its heart, a life-atom in the intermediate part of its constitution, a chemical atom in its body." (Purucker, Fountain Source, p 117)>>>

Is this so different than the Buddhist descriptions of the six realms of living beings (gods through hell-beings? And Buddhism also teaches monads - although this teaching is rejected in most (but not all) Mahayana schools.


<<<Purucker believes that ATMAN is an Entity and that it evolves. Whereas HPB says ATMAN is "no-entity" and that "Atma neither progresses, forgets, nor remembers" and "it is of course an absurdity to talk of the 'development' of a Monad . . . It stands to reason that a MONAD cannot either progress or develop, or even be affected by the changes of states it passes through.">>>

He clearly calls it a principle, although both he and HPB sometimes write of atman as if it were an entity. Many Theosophical writers refer, in some passages, to the principles as if they were bodies, for example. But none of the rinciples "progresses" in an evolutionary sense like monads do. However, as principles, they do change somewhat over time. Certainly manas, for example, as it is being expressed today, in the fifth Race of the fourth Round, is not the same manas that was in expression during the third Round, or even a million years ago in this Round. Of course the lower principle change faster than the upper ones, but even atman changes. And of course atman doesn't forget or remember - these are manas functions. The last quote above refers to the indivisible Monad, which is beyond time and so cannot evolve or change in any way.



<<<OLD JERRY: If we believe that the indivisible Monad (not atma-buddhi which is maya) is permanent, then we can agree with the Mind Only School.
Please explain how the Mind Only School believes in an indivisible Monad.>>>>

The Mind Only school believes in a permanent consciousness, and rejects any form or type of objectivity. This permanent consciousness is indivisible (vajra) as opposed to an aggregate - all aggregates being impermanent. This pure consciousness is said to have a Buddha Nature and it exists in Dharmadhatu, which is equivalent to saying that the Monad is a consciousness-center that resides in Be-Ness.


<<<I shall put what I think are the "key words" in HPB's statement in capitals:
"Its [Parabrahm's] one absolute attribute, WHICH IS ITSELF, eternal ceaseless Motion.."
So she is not talking about something which is an emanation or an effect. "WHICH IS ITSELF" means 'this is its own nature'.>>>

Peter, if want to believe that divinity itself has motion, then go ahead. Some folks believe that divinity itself has a long flowing beard and wears a white robe. I am trying to relate Theosophy to Buddhism, and this can't be done if divinity is some kind of thing that can move around. 


<<<We find similar statements about the Buddha Nature and Dharmakaya in the Shentong School of Buddhism, eg in the Uttaratantrashastra and
Srimalidevisimhananda Sutra. They maintain that the qualities and attibutes of Buddha Nature are its own essence, not something separate from it. >>>>>

Well, I don't know about "Shentong" but I have the Uttaratantrashastra in my library, where it proports to be a Mind Only document dictated by Maitreya to Asanga. My text says

"The perfect buddhakaya is all-embracing, suchness cannot be differentiated, and all beings have the disposition. Thus they always have buddha nature. The Buddha has said that all beings have buddha nature .. etc"

When anyone talks about the "qualities and attributes of Buddha Nature" one is differentiating something that "cannot be differentiated" and logical problems will naturally follow. All Buddhist schools teach that we already have a buddha nature, that we are already perfect and pure and permanent, and that all evolution and manifestation and learning etc is maya. Thus the entire evolutionary scheme in the SD is maya and the planes and principles including atma are maya and so on, else Theosophy cannot be related to Buddhism (and I think it can).


<<<Here is what a contemporary Shentong Master writes:
"The element, Tathagatagarbha, is empty of contingent (stains) that are
separable, since they are not of its essence, but not empty of the Buddha qualities that are not separable, since they are its own essence. . . These qualities are the essence of the non-conceptual Wisdom Mind. They are not divisible from its essence as if the minds essence were one thing and they were another. If they were like that they would have been shown to be empty of own nature by Madhyamaka reasoning. . . . The Buddha qualities are not compounded or conditioned qualities which arise, stay and perish. They exist primordially." (Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness: Ven. Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso
Rimpoche)>>>>

Actually, I agree with the quote. He is saying pretty much what I have said about the mind being a dirty mirror and needing to be cleaned. When one cleans away all the dirt, a mirror remains. But Peter, the qualities that "are the essence of the non-conceptual Wisdom Mind" do not include motion, space, or mayavic manifestation (which require a space-time continuum), and this is where I disagree with you.


<<<The same with Parabrahm and the GREAT BREATH, which is both Motion and SPACE.>>>

No, Parabrahman is non-dual, and Motion and Space are the primordial duality in which the Great Breath can take place. The Great Breath is exactly what maya is all about. Non-duality gives rise to duality through the Causeless Cause that we talked about before, and which is an unprovable and illogical assumption that we have to make. We have to assume that Parabrahman exists and that he/it is a causeless cause because such cannot be proved in any way and is illogical (the question as to why perfection needs self-expression has no logical answer). Only after making these two assumptions can we logically talk about the Great Breath and Space and Motion and all the rest.


<<<Well, its good to see that you can acknowledge that fundamental truths can be stated and recognised without them having to be logical.>>

But I do not accept that they are "fundamental truths" at all. Rather I assume them to be true (and there is a big difference in attitude here).
Modern scientific thought has made great strides since the days of Blavatsky and her Masters. It now recognizes assumptions when it sees them. IMO Theosophists need to become less religious and more scientific.

Jerry S.

--