Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00428)

Hi Jerry, and all of you,


I can only agree with you on the below - Jerry. It is interesting.
And thank you for the posting.

from Sufilght

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gerald Schueler" <gschueler@earthlink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <theos-l@list.vnet.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 11:26 PM
Subject: Theos-World Three Turnings of the Wheel


> Shakyamuni Buddha is said to have given out his teachings in three phases, called three turnings of the wheel. The first turning was for the Hinayana schools and the two other turnings were for the Mahayana schools. The following is a Middle Way view:
> 
> "Of the three wheels, the first is the Hinayana collection; the other two, the Mahayana collection. Furthermore, the first wheel teaches the Sravakadoctrine; the intermediate one teaches the Madhyamika doctrine; the last one teaches the Cittamatra doctrine. Consequently, the intermediate wheel has final meaning and the other two have provisional meaning." (Mkhas-grub-rje, primary disciple of Tzongkhapa)
> 
> Of course, the Mind Only schools reverse the last sentence above, becausethey consider the third turning of the wheel to be definitive and the other two provisional.
> 
> So, all three schools take a literal view of one of the three turnings. In all cases, definitive means that it can be taken literally, while provisional means that it has to be interpreted.
> 
> The first turning teaches that samsara is a mayavic expression of nirvanawhich is real and permanent and eternal. So, those Theosophists who believe that atma is real and permanent or that Spirit is the Absolute are in agreement with the first-turning Hinayana schools.
> 
> The second turning contains the pranaparamita sutras, and teaches the doctrine of emptiness. Nothing is reified, and so many mis-interpret this viewas being too nihilistic. This turning teaches that both samsara and nirvana are maya (form is emptiness and emptiness is form etc). Theosophists agreeing with this teaching would argue that atma is maya and even the Monad and Parabrahman are not real permanent things. I know of no Theosophist who would go this far, although this was the view held by Tzongkhapa and all theDali Lamas and Panchen Lamas that Blavatsky extols in her writings..
> 
> The third turning contains the Mind Only sutras like the Lankavatara and Samdhinrmocana, and reifies consciousness. In this turning, maya is the belief in an original subject-object bifurcation. Here too, samsara and nirvana (as a duality or bifurcation) are both maya. Theosophists who believe that atma is maya but the Monad and Parabrahman are real and permanent are in agreement with this turning.
> 
> In light of Blavatsky's journey to Tibet and her Tibetan Masters, and herobvious understandidng of Mahayana, I find the above to be pretty interesting.
> 
> Jerry S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
>