Jerry S.'s Replies to BAG's Comments
Jan 08, 2003 11:50 AM
by D. H. Caldwell " <firstname.lastname@example.org>
<<< Your interpretation of the above as "personified reifications"
shows that you have no understanding of the vast difference between
the modern western concept of 'personification' and the ancient
Eastern concept of the PERSONAL presence of atman and ATMAN
throughout the cosmos and beyond. In the Vaishnava Tradition, ATMAN
PARABRAHMAN is NOT ultimately impersonal, and thus all emanations and
incarnations, including the jiva-atmas are ALL PERSONAL.
Personification is a concept known to the ancient Vaishnavas, but
considered by them to be similar to idolatry, or the concocted
worship of false 'gods' or Bhutas. >>>
Nevertheless, I see gods and goddesses as our own mental projections
rather than truly existing external beings. I view each and every
living being as an I-Not-I Monad, and because the Not-I becomes one
with the I in nonduality, there can be no externally independent
existing beings in anyone's Not-I.
<<<Lila 'incarnations' are usually Avataras as THEOPHANIES rather
than actual INCARNATIONS. Some of the prominent Lila Avataras of
Krishna-Vishnu are popularly worshiped in Nepalese and Tibetan
Buddhism. For example the Horse-Headed Hayagriva Lokeshvara, Lion-
Headed Nrisingha Lokeshvara, and Boar-Headed Baraha Lokeshvara.
Vishnu's Guna Avatara as Siva Bairava is Worshiped as Maha Kalah or
Kalah-Bhairab, and Vishnu's Form as Dharma or Yama is worshiped as
Yamantaka. There are scores of other direct connections. >>>
I agree that exoteric religion sets up gods and goddesses and
worships them. I have practiced Yamatanka rituals myself, and agree
as to their effectiveness. However, I see them all as projections of
our own I-Not-I Monad, which itself comes from my own interpretation
of estoeric Theosophy.
<<<For example the Dalai Lamas were once considered incarnations of
Amitabha, Lokeshvara or Chen Rei Zei. The Kathmandu Kumari is
considered a Shaktyavesha', possessed or empowered incarnation of
KALI. Shankaracarya was is widely believed to be an incarnation of
Yes but to say as the way you are saying it is pure exotericism.
Buddhists do not believe in atman or self, and their gods are not
inherently existing beings. When a Buddhist talks about incarnations
or tulkus, they mean to say that a certain person is born expressing
or manifesting those qualities that the god or goddess symbolically
<<<To learn more, search for HERU or HORUS THE ELDER. >>>
I wrote a book on ancient Egypt in which I translated various
chapters of the Book of the Dead (Coming Into the Light) so I am
already versed in this subject and I understand what you are saying.
Orisis personifies the reincarnation process. Horus personifies the
human being as part of a human lifewave subject to reincarnation and
karma (Maat). Isis personifies the Arc of Descent and her sister
Nephtys personifies the Arc of Ascent.
<<<Dismissing the many Names and Forms of God as merely the product
of various human cultures or some kind of Archetypal projection
leaves many very important questions unasked and unanswered. In the
1960s I recognized these cognate Holy Names, when it was
still 'forbidden' to even compare them. Since then, the whole field
of Helleno-Semitica has blossomed, and the computer assisted field of
Super Linguistics has developed. Studies of the Nostratic Linguistic
Super family, plus the Niger and Nilo-Saharan Linguistic Families are
now yielding evidence that supports my 1960s findings regarding the
cognate Names of the ONE GOD in Egyptian, Indo-European and Semitic
While this may all be true, it doesn't counter the fact that gods and
goddesses are our own mental projections. In point of fact, I believe
that everything in the Not-Self or Not-I (ie, everything that we view
as not our own self) is a mental projection, and I do so in accord
with the Mind Only School of Tibetan Buddhism from which Blavatsky
got many of her teachings.
<<<Actually the Omphalos at Delphi was NOT originally a 'Phallic'
symbol, but a navel or umbilicus. It represented the axis mundi that
was Hari's / Heli' s (Vishnu's) navel / umbilicus, on which HELIOS
PHANES APPEARED AT THE DAWN OF CREATION. Delphi was a Helios Shrine,
and Delpha is cognate with GARBHA, ... The coinage of Rhodes and
sometimes members of the Rhodian Heliopolitan Asyla Federations
(Leagues) often had a Rose, Lotus or Star on them. >>>
This entire paragraph of intellectual gymnastics reminds me of
Blavatsky, who loved this kind of stuff, full of sound and fury and
signifying, what...? I have no idea of what practical value any of
<<<Thus one can 'reach' the Spiritual Sky and God through either
cataphatic means or apophatic means, by journeying either without or
Yes, and Blavatsky's own globes and planes model is a nice map of the
general areas. But reaching these worlds implies the use of magic,
and you will not find any Theosophists eager to do so.
<<<However, in the original Pure Land Tradition, the doctrine of
liberation was one of MOKSHA for real beings, in an infinite PURE
LAND Sukhavati, through the salvific grace of Amitabha-Lokesvara-Hrih
the PERSONAL TRI KAYA. >>>
I am not sure that Blavatsky knew of the Pure Land school.
<<<The attempt to reconcile the doctrine of the saving cosmic
intercession of Amitabha, Lokesvara and Bodhisattvas with the
doctrine of anatta is absurd. Why so much effort of not-real beings
to 'save' other not-real beings ? >>>
These beings are not "not real." They have conditional reality. If we
say that conditional beings are not real, then the entire doctrines
of karma and reincarnation and treading a Path go out the window.
Conditional reality is just that -- a reality. But it is not
<<<When HPB chose to promote the Pure Land Mahayana doctrine
of 'Nirmanya Kaya' Bodhisattvas over promoting the Theravada doctrine
of nirvana, she was choosing to affirm the existence of savable atmas
as the object of compassion. However, not having a Dharma Kaya to
promote publicly, she kept her chelas and the Mahatmas endlessly
circulating in the great rounds of our universe ! >>>
I am not convinced that HPB was even aware of Pure land let alone
promoted it. She promoted an eclectic set of teachings from the
various Tibetan Buddhist schools. She clearly did promote Mahayana
over Thervadin. I am not sure what "savable atmas" are, but it sounds
like Christianty saving souls etc, which Blavatsky never taught. I
agree with your last sentence.
<<<It should be noted that one NEVER 'falls' back into material birth
after being 'born' in the PURE LAND, and the WAY to get to the PURE
LAND is through FAITH in the salvific OTHER-POWER OF AMITABHA,
Lokeshvara, Their Bodhisattvas, saints and HOLY MOTHER TARA / Kuan
Never say never. While I agree with faith, I do not agree with
salvation. Theosophy has nothing to do with salvation. The very fact
that we are here now implies the possibility of being here again --
this is the logical heart of reincarnation and it challenges
any "never again" business.
<<<My only addition to your statement would be that in Vaishnava
Vedanta, there are also Brahmavadis in the Brahma Jyoti (Brahman) in
the Spiritual Sky. Some of these also have a kind of bliss, because
theirs is an experience of merging with the Brahman, as a beloved may
desire to 'merge' with their Lover.>>>
Again, projecting an external Brahman to unite with is not necessary.
I believe that we each already have an anandakosha or Body of Bliss
and that conscious activation of this is the reason for the bliss
that is experienced in spiritual states.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application