Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00195)

<<<<Blavatsky's ideas of Atma,Maya, and her transmigration of souls are not as much Oriental or even Cabalistic or Platonic only, but typical 19th century constructions. >>>

I tend to agree with you, if we take her writings literally. However, if we assume that she was, indeed, a Buddhist, and that she was familair with at least some of the Tibetan Teachings, then the question becomes, can we interpret her writings from a Buddhist perspective, rather than as a typical 19th century construction? I think we can, but it is obvious from discussions on this list that most Theosophists don't care want to do that. 

I have shown, in my article on monads, that she probably got the idea of monads from Tibetan Buddhism. Also, of course, from Leibnitz. However, it is a teaching that is refuted by Tzongkhapa, whom she praises as a reincarnation of Buddha (which even his Tibetan Gelugpas don't do). I consider this piece of evidence to be rather interesting, but I do not think that most Thesophists will thank me for it.
And of course Tzongkhapa also taught that atma is maya (no matter who one wants to define atma) which again is not something most Theosophists want to hear. However, if the TM is to continue into the this new century with more than a handful of members wearing blinders, Theosophists are going to have to come to grips with these facts.

There may be ways to show Theosophy's association with Hinduism or with Vedanta, I don't know, and so far no one has even tried to do that. Rather, they simply act negatively with objections to any kind of Buddhist associations. I have pointed out many conflicts in Blavatsky's teachings, and all everyone wants to do is to shoot the messenger.


<<<And one finds this out , I'd say only, if one study's the obvious sources that as Steve again 
demonstrated by means of recent discoveries, is still possible to do. That way one can learn to understand Blavatsky's real theosophy, including along the way hopefully how she came to glue it 
all together and if some of that glue was due to looking in mirrors , taking drugs, and or watever else.>>>

Well, I do think that we should all be trying to find the "real Theosophy" wherever and whatever it is. History may provide some sources and some source material, but it seems clear that Blavatsky put these pieces together herself to form her Theosophy, and this could only have been done if she had direct spiritual insight via meditation. Spiritual experiences are ineffable, but they can be clothed in many words. Each of the world's religions, for example, is a different clothing of such ineffable experiences. 

It is a possibility that Blavatsky deiberately wrote the SD in such a way as to be interpretable on many levels including the literal, in order have a univeral appeal, and attract a wide range of students, etc. If so, then we Theosophists have to recognize that such grades and levels exist, and that some interpretations are "more insightful" than others, and so on.

Jerry S.

--