[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Jerry S.'s Replies to BAG's Comments

Jan 08, 2003 11:50 AM
by D. H. Caldwell " <>

<<< 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 
Shiva. >>>

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 
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 
this is.

<<<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 

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 
Yin. >>>

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.

Thanks, BAG,

Jerry S.

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application