Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00358)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Bhakti Ananda Goswami 
<bhakti.eohn@v...>" <bhakti.eohn@v...> wrote:
> I am in general agreement with K. P. Johnson, and the propositions 
> reagrding the Kashmiri Rajas, put forth on the Esoteric and Science 
> News website.... 
> 
> "...some lineages within Sikhism combine both Hindu/ Buddhist and 
> Sufi cosmological elements in a way that closely resembles the 
> cosmology of HPB (see also the article about Theosophy and Ismaili 
on 
> this web site). "
> 
> I SEE THE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE OR PHILOSOPHICAL TENSION IN THE 
> THEOSOPHICAL THOUGHT SYSTEM AS BEING DUE TO AN ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE 
> THE ABSOLUTE NOTHING ANATTA DOCTRINE OF SRI LANKAN THERAVADIN 
> BUDDHISM, WITH BOTH THE THEISTIC/ PERSONAL AND ADVAITI/ IMPERSONAL 
> BRAHMAN ELEMENTS IN THE MAHATMAS' KASHMIRI FUSION OF BON, TIBETAN, 
> SUFI, VAISNAVA, SHAIVITE AND SIKH TEACHINGS. 

That is a pretty strange combination. Blavatsky's gambit was to 
suggest that anatta applies only to the lower manas )kama-manas) and 
that appparently the higher manas (buddhi-manas) was persistent, 
thereby adopting what Buddhists call the "crypto soul." This idea 
was either explained in a way that is misleading (meaningg my take on 
it is wrong) or else it is a serious weakness in the system. I think 
Blavatsky meant what she said when she wrote in one of the mahatma 
letters that she did not believe in a personal absolute reality.

So two questions for you: if the mahatmas really were Sikhs, what is 
your take on the statement that they were Tibetan Buddhists? Is that 
just an outright lie or what? Also, do the Kashmiri Sikhs to which 
you refer have any tradition of mahatmas appearting astrally, etc., 
the way we see in Theosophy?