Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00115)

Monday, January 07, 2002

Theosophy and Buddhism -- do they really differ ?


Dear Friends:


H P B, from the outset in her books and in many of her articles
implies a fundamental unity -- BODHISM -- or "WISDOMISM."


BUDDHA -- A title of the WISE.

The "Buddha" was a title given to a number of individuals
including the latest Gautama Siddartha who lived and taught
about 2,500 years ago. His contemporaries include Pythagoras,
Zarathustra and Lao-Tse, also perhaps, Quetzalcoatl. It must
have been a very important cycle for several "Teachers" to
incarnate in various places and offer teachings similar in
quality -- that have reverberated down the years to our times --
to the people local to that area

As students of Theosophy, we must recall the important service
Col. H. S. Olcott did to Buddhism, by seeking to reconcile the
several "Schools" in his time. He was highly respected by all
those various schools, and he also produced the " BUDDHIST
CATECHISM," which is a most valuable and basic book.

I believe that what has become today, Buddhism -- as a formal set
of teachings, with several schools of thought -- might be said to
be the expression of THEOSOPHY, as the Buddha gave it, to the
people of his area and time. He did not name it "Buddhism."
After his death for many years the symbol used to represent him
and his words of truth was a TREE -- the TREE OF WISDOM.


KRISHNA -- A WISE AVATARA

Looking back 1,500 years before the Buddha we had the Avatar of
Vishnu named Krishna. He came at the period immediately before
the start of the Kali Yuga -- which began at the time of his
death (February 18th., 3,102 B C) [S D I 650, 664-5, II 140,
435, ] Studying these expositions one comes to the conclusion
that each of them were expressions of a common, a single code of
ethics and, carrying the same tradition forward, we find Jesus
teaching the same in the Sermon on the Mount.

As far as I can see, if the line of "teachings" about the laws
and operations of Nature is a description of a single existing
moral / ethical system, the changes in language and nomenclature
are unimportant. It is the IDEAS that are. No one ever
"escapes" the results of their "choices." Called Karma, this law
is fair and just to all and provides for redress of those to whom
wrong is done.

The main problem, as I see it today, is that we all claim the
system we have espoused, is the only correct one (or, perhaps)
the one in which it is best expressed. Are we flexible enough to
recognize a unity that extends and includes other systems of
similar worth?

In MAHATMA LETTERS ( pp. 33, 43) the Mahatma, calls the Buddha
"our Great Patron, " "the patron of all the adepts." There are
also indications there that the College of the Adepts includes
and shelters many great Men from a large variety of -places in
the world.

If this is correct, then the statements made in ISIS UNVEILED
(Vol. II, pp 98-103), and SECRET DOCTRINE Vol. I pp 272-3) imply
and reinforce the concept that there always has been, and there
is today, ONE Esotericism in the world and that all the Adepts,
Prophets, Buddhas, Dhyanis, Avatars, Rishis, etc belong to a
single Lodge, or Body of the Wise. Why would the world need
diverse and opposing factions? If there is One Truth, then why
would there be any need for multiple philosophies or "religions?"
Why would the limitations of language give barriers to thought?
Why would the operations of KARMA (as Nature's Laws) show any
preferential treatment to any one group over the rest ?

In recent months we have had a debate periodically arising about
ATMA and ANATMA [SPIRIT and NO-SPIRIT ]. Are they facts? Do
they exist ? Various schools of Buddhist metaphysical thought
are quoted on this. But, can it not be resolved ?

Is the ABSOLUTE "no-spirit?" or, does it contain everything,
(un-manifested, or manifested) regardless of such definition as
our embodied minds try to apply? If it is EVERYTHING
(unmanifested as well as manifested) we might as well agree that
in using those terms we refer to a total change in quality or
nature. It is the universal transit from rest (subjective
inertia) to activity. Perhaps the idea of the "Big Bang"
originated there. [S D I 69, 75, ] The IMPARTITE always
remains. It is unmoved. The PARTIAL always comes and goes --
yet it is always contained in the IMPARTITE. For example SPACE
does not change whether there is manifestation or
non-manifestation. it always IS.

If we concede all-inclusiveness to ABSOLUTENESS, then does
differentiation violate this? Is "Manifestation" total or
partial? If total, then where is the possibility for reversion
to a non-manifested condition? If it is partial, then under what
laws of space, time and causation does this take place? I do not
think our finite minds are capable of arriving at any definite
opinion nor can they offer any "comparisons," as such states as
the "non-manifest" are out of our range of sensory perception.

The SECRET DOCTRINE speaks of Law [Universal Karma ?] that
transcends the period of "rest" named Pralaya, and Maha-Pralaya.
We are given a table in our "time" of the process of
manifestation [ S D II 68 - 70 ], and the time taken in
various cycles implies a well-known set of limits that the
IMMORTAL WISE know.

Consider the nature of the Monad -- said to be immortal. And
consider the program to develop ans manifest the perfection
implicit in it. At the end of any period of manifestation, it
and everything else goes into pralaya. This does not obliterate
it. When Manvantara restarts it is called back to its work and
it resumes at the point where it stopped. This seems quite
reasonable. We do it every day of our lives, and resume
consciousness and responsibility when we wakeup each morning,
back in the same body again.

Is the purpose of manifestation (our Universe as a sample) to
offer an opportunity to Monads of "lesser experience" to learn
and catch up to their total spiritual potential? [S D I 634,
Patanjali, pp 24-25] Is it not possible that "entities" who have
"graduated" much earlier, from "schools of experience" similar to
the one on our Earth, but far remote in the past-time, may not
have volunteered to assist and give by their presence an
inspiration, a hope for success to us and to all the Monads that
now constitute "manifested space?"

Apparently, to me, there are no "finalities" in these matters.
Are then, all these things delusions and illusions? How would it
be possible for our minds to consider getting involved in
insoluble doubts and speculations? For every problem there has
to be a foundation, somewhere. Also a solution. Where and how do
we find that ?

Slinging the conclusion of old scholars at one another still does
not answer the WHY. Each of those conclusions ought to be
analyzed for accuracy and reasonableness within the context of
its original meaning. We have no reason to suppose that our
present methods of analysis pertained and operated in those
ancient times. But we can take it for granted that what was
reasonable then, ought to be reasonable now.

Liberation, it is claimed, is the goal of Buddhism. But this
freedom from bondage to rebirth, and to the pains and sorrows of
earth-life need, I think, a deeper definition. Liberated from
what? What then happens to those we have earlier dedicated our
lives t help? Are they abandoned? Are we acting responsibly in
such a case ? If we are "liberated," then where do we go? How
do we reside? What shall we be doing ?

Is it the Soul that will be liberated? If so, what happens to
the body and all the assembled "Monads of lesser experience" that
have been assembled and so far, have been helped and guided ?
Abandonment is hardly COMPASSIONATE. So, I sense that there is
some explanation that is left out.

Was the association of the Wise MONAD (with experience) that
accepted and desired to establish a connection with the Monads of
"lesser experience," doing this for its own benefit? Or was it
doing this voluntary embodiment to assist and help in their
individual progress those Monads that had still a part of their
pilgrimage to accomplish ?

In any case we may be sure that THEOSOPHY does not accept the
idea of Sunyata (emptiness) See S D I 289 : "There is not one
finger's breadth (ANGULA) of void space in the whole Boundless
(Universe)..."

Best wishes,

Dallas

=====================================




-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce F. MacDonald [mailto:bmacdonald@accesscomm.ca]
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 7:50 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: To Jerry and Ian

Jerry,
Thanks for the reply. I do wish that Brigitte would
answer some
of the questions put to her, though. I have addressed a couple
of things
to her and she seems to only go on to quotations from other
sources on
different topics.
But anyway, to what you say below:

><<<So we would have to conclude that Theosophy is not Buddhism
and
>Buddhism is not Theosophy. Is that the point? If so, I would
agree.
> Peace, Bruce>>>>
>
>Bruce, I don't see that much real difference, myself. Perhaps
the main
>differences are one of emphasis? Buddhism emphasizes liberation,
and
>Theosophy doesn't, but Theosophy doesn't rule it out either.
Buddhism
>emphasizes anatman while Theosophy emphasizes atman but both
define the
>term atman differently, etc. I find a great deal of similarity
between
>Buddhism and what I call esoteric Theosophy (ie, taking a
literal
>interpretation of the Theosophical core teachings is exoteric
Theosophy).

Bruce: Of course, there are many similarities. And this is
inevitable,
since Theosophy (as I understand it after only a couple of years
of reading
Theosophical material) is an expression of the same tradition as
Buddhism. But I guess I see the Wisdom Religion as the trunk of
the tree
and various religions as the branches which spring from the
trunk,
Theosophy in the HPB expression as one or the branches, but one
of the
branches which tries to point to a lot of the other branches and
so
indicate the common trunk.
So there are bound to be a lot of similarities between
Buddhism,
Hinduism, Jainism, Hermeticism , Kabbalism etc, because they all
draw on
the same trunk and root, and that root I see as something which
can be
tapped into (tap root?) in meditative experience. And since it
would seem
that all people are from the same "source" in terms of their
inner makeup,
it is inevitable that there will be similarities in the religions
which
draw on meditation and "inner work" as a source of inspiration.
We are
seen, after all, in this tradition as "all One," with Separation
as the
greatest heresy. (That is why I am not sure why there is so much
animosity
on this list which is examining, I think, the common roots from
which we
all spring. That we come from different perspectives is
inevitable, and
that we use different language to get to the same conclusions is
understandable, but the animosity is pure Kama-Manas stuff.)
I guess what I am getting at in some ways (although I
wanted to
know what Brigitte was getting at) is that I find in my own
meditational
experience that I resonate more with what Shankaracharya says
rather than
with what appears to me to be a kind of negation in Buddhism.
When I enter
into the deepest states I have achieved, I do not experience
negation in
terms of a nothingness, an anatman, but rather a "fullness" which
I cannot
describe but which seems to be accounted for best with the idea
of Atman as
an expression of the Divine Oneness. So there is a sense of
absolute
Oneness yet with an experience of individuation within that
Oneness, which
I recognize as "the experiencer" although far from being a
personality or
ego, which leads me to resonate with the teachings of Atman as
"the
Experiencer" instead of with the idea of anatman, where
consciousness seems
to be wiped out. If there is nothing, there is nothing, so why
bother --
I guess is my reaction.
Now that may be a misunderstanding of what Buddhism is
teaching
about everything being maya. But at this point in my spiritual
growth I
don't find that intellectual arguments mean a heck of a lot, so I
have to
go back to experience to explain.
Now, in relation to Sunyata (emptiness), my experience
has been
that, yes, the whole manifested world is Sunya, in the sense of
having no
inherent existence, no eternal, fixed, unchanging existence. It
comes into
being and changes and disappears....... but this is getting
into what I
wanted to say to Ian about his email, so I will close this one
and continue
in the next "To Jerry and Ian" email where I address his comments
directly.

Peace, Bruce


---
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as:
dalval14@earthlink.net
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-theos-l-14759P@list.vnet.net