Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00060)

Hi Leon, Thanks for an interesting reply. One of the reasons I put this out
here is that I have read again and again on theosophy lists a comparison of
Theosophy to Buddhism, and recently, the talk from a Theosophsy Convention
(theos-world newsletter) stating that Theosophy is nothing other than
Mahayana Buddhism (it is not, but that's ok.) I just occasionally like to
try to clarify this, little by little.

I'm glad that someone thinks my understanding of Buddhism is "profound." I
think you are gently pulling my leg. In any case, I am an eclectic Buddhist,
as I do not chant or practice rituals. I agree with you that there is much
similarity between Buddhism and many of the great spiritual teachings of
humanity, including Christianity. Maybe sometime I will put on here some
past writings on this subject which I have sent to other lists. I am
actually a religious fanatic of sorts, though I do not believe in much of
anything, as I have always, from childhood, been deeply attracted to
anything that has to so with religion, and have never been too particular
about which religion it is. At an early age, twenty-seven, I found
Krishnamurti, and in the last fifteen years, an interest in science has come
into the picture.

Buddhism is a religion that is designed, as any effective religion, for
people of many different levels of understanding. But this religion is more
contemporary, in a sense, as the idea of dependent origination, is taught
literally, as well as allegorically, whereas in other religions, such as
Christianity, one can only find allegorical reference to this, and it is so
encoded that most would miss it.

I do not know if you read a message I put out here some time ago, in
response to Dallas, in which I mentioned numbers, but I do not believe a
complete understanding or experiencing of the forces of the trinity is
possible to a human being. Different numbers have been used to represent a
human being in different traditions. I suggested that the number six might
be a better place to start than the number three, as we are always in
relationship.

In Mahayana Buddhism, a kind of samadhi-like meditative state where
everything sort of seems to be standing still (behind everything moving) is
not the end of this great teaching, but actually where it begins. The aim,
as in all major spiritual practices, including Taoism and Alchemy, is to
take the "seed" of man and elevate in such a way that it is not disseminated
or broken apart and scattered to the winds, but to raise it up whole in such
a way that a transformation of the individual is affected in that the
generative quality of the whole seed becomes the quality of the whole
person. The problem with a primal cause, whatever it is and however it is
conceived, is that its mental conception generates a split, and then it is
NOT THAT.

It is the teaching of Mahayana Buddhism that nothing is unchanging, but that
everything is interconnected and MOVING, and therefore there cannot be a
primal cause. This is demonstrated through logic as a KEY part of the
teaching and is called DEPENDENT ORIGINATION. One can try to make the
technical point that EMPTINESS is not moving, but all emptiness means is
that nothing exists on its own side, independent of everything else.
Obviously, a full realization of emptiness leads to a state of deep
meditation. The aim is the CONNECT the two understandings of EMPTINESS and
DEPENDENT ORIGINATION in such a way that they are inseparable. When this
occurs, it is said that this is liberation. I would not know for sure, but I
am beginning to have a glimmer of understanding, as "through a glass
darkly," about what this is and how it works IN THE BODY. Presumably, after
this understanding is complete, one would enter a very small society of
Mahayana Buddhists or whomever, as one would then be able to generate the
Non-convention or major boddhichitta and could rightfully be called a
Mahayana Buddhist, which I cannot yet call myself. Even to write this, about
the possibility of becoming a Mahayana Buddhist sends a thrill of joy
through my body.

Re. what you refer to as "the eternality of the Absolute rootless root of
all," there are different kinds of Buddhism for different kinds of people.
For some Buddhists, perhaps, though I am not even sure, this might not be a
contradiction, but for a Mahayana Buddhist, this would. There is no way to
approach certain material except by A total OBLITERATION. This is what Sufi
mystics refer to when they speak of the lover being a slave to the Sultan or
the moth being consumed by the flame. When this obliteration is complete,
there is NO RECORD of it having occurred. At this POINT and only at this
POINT, certain OPERATIONS can be PREFORMED. It then (presumably) becomes not
about helping sentient creatures, but about doing the best for ONESELF.
This is BEING, but one would also need KNOWLEDGE. One could perhaps be
called quantum and the other macroscopic, or whatever, but to translate all
this into ones daily life, in my opinion, it ultimately needs to be reduced
to a daily practice of sweeping the floor consciously. Hope this makes some
kind of sense. Responses can sometimes seem exaggerated as they are written
down. I will try to approach this subject a little bit more in the language
of science sometime (and somewhere) in the next few weeks. Sincerely, Wry

----- Original Message -----
From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 2:08 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World re .Buddhismi


>
> In a message dated 11/03/02 4:56:26 PM, wry1111@earthlink.net writes:
>
> >Leon, in Mahayana Buddhism, there is not an effort to understand "the
'root'
> >of Consciousness" or "the root of matter," as you have put it, as this
> >would lead to an extreme, which is called "eternalism," which would be
> >contradictory to the teaching of Mahayana Buddhism, which is to act from
> >a middle ground in such a way that as to relieve the suffering of
sentient
> >beings by generating great compassion (boddhichitta) which is considered
> >the antidote to the sufferings of sentient beings. >
> Thank you for your comments, and I respect your profound knowledge of the
> Buddhistic teachings. However, I never said that Mahayana Buddhism is an
> effort to understand "the root of consciousness" or "the root of matter."
>
> Those questions are, on the other hand, my primary interest from an occult
> metaphysical and scientific point of view -- that has little to do with
the
> laudable Buddhist interest in "relieving the suffering of sentient beings
by
> generating great compassion" during this current cycle of their existence.
> In fact, I very much admire this aspect of Buddhism, and have been
practicing
> an equivalent of the "eight fold path" (which I call "Dzyan") in my
personal
> life. Although, I am not a Buddhist of any sort in an organized religious
> sense -- since I see Gautama, the Buddha, as being no different in his
> understanding of the true nature of reality than any great "Master of
Wisdom"
> -- some of whose disciples formalized religious movements on their Behalf.
> However, their moral-ethical basis (or religious practices and teachings)
> cannot answer the questions of pure scientific theosophy (or occult
> metaphysics) that I am asking -- and attempting to answer in modern
> scientific terms (the language of this age) as best I can.
>
> I have no argument with the necessity for the "middle path" to fulfill the
> goals of Mahayana Buddhism, but I see this as no different, in essence,
than
> the path of Lao Tse, Jesus, Krishna, Hermes-Thoth, Pythagorus, etc. As a
> result of this "free thinking" on my part, I believe that "a theosophist
is
> one who is in the true service of humanity," and can say that "I am a
member
> of no cult or sect but a member of each and all." (This, of course, being
> limited to the esoteric ideas and truths concerning the true nature of
> reality that are their common roots.)
>
> Because Mahayana Buddhism bases its teachings on a denial of "eternalism"
> (whatever that means) doesn't negate the fact that consciousness, mind and
> matter exist as intimately connected universal attributes in the here and
> now, and as far back in the cyclic "lives" or "manvantaras" of the Cosmos
> that we care to go. It is reasonable to assume, then, that these triune
> functions, whether asleep or awake, either had a beginning somehow and
> somewhere, or are the fundamental aspects of the Cosmos (based on a single
> unified and fundamental law) -- that continues to exist, whether absorbed
and
> asleep in the Absolute or as a manifest plenum consisting of phenomenal
> consciousness (or Spirit), mind, and matter (substance) which are
intimately
> linked through seven, ten or twelve coadunate but not consubstantial
fields,
> phases, states, or planes, in infinite (subjective or objective)
permutations
> and combinations -- that never had a beginning nor will ever have an end.
If
> the latter is the case, then it's also reasonable to assume that,
together,
> the "rootless roots" of these related aspects of reality, are "eternal"
(in
> the infinite sense). Thus, there are the possibilities of an infinite
number
> of universes -- of which this is only one of them. Modern science (e.g.,
> Superstring/M-brane theory) is getting very close to confirming this.
>
> However, I understand the necessity of Buddha's limiting of his concerns
(and
> those of his disciples) solely to the finite or "non eternal" cycle of
this
> manvantara and its associated "sentient beings" -- that have, in
themselves,
> also a finite and temporary existence. Nevertheless, this does not negate
> the possibility that the fundamental and triune "roots" of this temporary
> existence, are, in themselves, eternal. Thus, the eternal Monad reflects
> itself everywhere. This idealistic as well as scientific "esoteric
> Bodhi-ism," goes far beyond (deeper than) the pragmatic "exoteric
Buddhism"
> studied and practiced (for obvious reasons) by the current religious
> disciples of the Buddha.
>
> I hope you understand that my position, with relation to the eternality of
> the Absolute rootless root of all, is not a contradiction of the Buddha's
> Mahayana teachings... But, that it goes far beyond the limited scope of
his
> concern for the welfare of sentient beings during this limited and finite
> phase of their existence in the present state of the Cosmos. I think that
> the fundamental metaphysical teachings of theosophy in the SD, based on
the
> pure "occultism" that underlies it, make this perfectly clear.
>
> Respectfully,
> LHM
> http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/ABC_bw.html
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>