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

Jerry Schueler's Comments to BAG's Part 2

Jan 12, 2003 07:43 PM
by D. H. Caldwell " <>

I have no comments on Part I of BAG's four-part Summary and Reply. The
following are some comments to Part 2:

<<<The jivas and GOD are distinct as Persons or Purushas and finite 
jivas. In the Vedas and Puranas even the Persons in the Godhead are 
distinct, so for Vaishnavas, it is not difficult to understand the 
eternal personal existence of the finite jivatmas in relationship to 
the infinite Deity Paramatma.>>> 

But Blavatsky was a Buddhist, and Buddhism does not believe 
in "persons" as having any suchness. Separate persons or beings are 
mayavic although they do have conditional reality. The Vedic/Hindu 
concept of an "eternal personal existence" is a mayavic illusion 
according to both Buddhism and esoteric Theosophy, and I also believe 
this. It is ironic however, that most Theosophists hang onto this 
idea thinking that atma-buddhi is somehow an "eternal personal 
existence." It is not; lasting but a single manvantara.

<<<the atheistic Buddhists >>>

There are no such things, and this phrase is a good demonstration of 
BAG's negative biases toward Buddhism. There is a lot of God-worship 
and bhakti-type praising in Buddhism. Buddhists are not atheists, 
they are polytheists.

<<<HPB claimed that the "Stanzas of DZYAN" were from a lost SENZAR 
language. One should note that the Tibetan and Tamil (South Indian) 
languages do have a 'z' sound ... Although it is possible that HPB's 
source for the Vedic and Puranic Stanzas was some text in 'Senzar', I 
doubt it. I think she obscured her Sanskrit Shastra sources to cover 
the fact that she was misrepresenting them. >>>

HPB was not fluent in Sanskrit, and according to Rich Taylor, she 
wrote according to how she heard words sound when pronounced, thus 
making many errors in spelling, but still getting the correct meaning 

<<<However her hostility to THEISM in general, and her contempt for 
the Judeo-Catholic Traditions in particular, prevented her from 
grasping the true significance of the apparent connections.>>>

I too have a certain "hostility to THEISM" mainly because I think it 
is misguided. Buddhism, in general, is polytheistic and not theistic, 
and Blavatsky was a Buddhist after all. 

<<<HPB used the Vedic-Vaishnava Texts like the Vedas and Vishnu 
Purana, but systematically edited and interpreted MahaPurusha, the 
Triune Personal Godhead out of them. She even went so far as to claim 
that her "Theosophy" was the original, pure teaching, and that the 
personal God and doctrine of His Incarnation were "charlatanesque 
imitations of Occultism and Theosophy. . . . By pandering to the 
prejudices of people,... '>>>

Yes she did and I, for one, agree with her on this.

<<<So HPB, who used Vedic-Vaishnava Shastras in a 
completely "...distorted and falsified" way, to "..suit the 
prejudices and tastes.." of herself...>>>

Her "distorted and falsified way" is how Buddhists see them. It is 
pretty much how I see them. Most shastras, and their original texts 
as well, are open to interpretation. In fact, a shastra is but one 
person's interpretation of a sacred text.

Jerry S.

[Back to Top]

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