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

RE: Theos-World Re[6]: Essential Unity--and Bailey on Mohammedanism

Jan 21, 2003 03:20 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins

Hello Wry, 

Thank you for the clarification. I really have very little time to
follow this discussion group as interesting as it is. Consequently, I
read selectively and often miss the context of the discussions. It
appears that your discussion is around Richard Taylor's presentation in
Long Beach CA, August 2002. Actually, I attended that conference and
felt that Richard's presentation was the highlight of the weekend. 

In his presentation, Richard did not argue that Theosophy itself is
Buddhism. Rather, he tried to show that many of the terms and ideas in
Blavatsky's writings come from Tibetan Buddhism. He further showed that
some of them were not known to Buddhist scholars at the time. In other
words, he was trying to show that Blavatsky did indeed have knowledge
about Buddhism that was beyond what the contemporary scholars knew. 

Personally, I found Richard's presentation convincing. However, my
knowledge in Buddhism is only general--limited to popular works that
I've been reading on and off since the sixties. A few years ago, I did
begin practicing insight meditation under the guidance of a local
teacher here. His name is Jack Kornfield, and he is very popular in
this country. His teachings are all practical application however. He
never talks about the philosophical schools or the differences between
them. Everything is about practice techniques; which is a lot of hard


-----Original Message-----
From: wry [] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re[6]: Essential Unity--and Bailey on

Hi. I read it very recently on this list and also on theosophy study
list in
a message from Jerry S. in which he commented to Bag and also have read
it other of his messages, and I believe a whole theosophical conference
somewhere, I think in LA, was devoted to the subject of Mahayana
and in the lecture, it was suggested that the teachings of theosophy is
Buddhism. I am not sure he mentioned it was Mahayana Buddhism, but I
he did. These talks, or a synopsis of them, were posted in the
from theos-world. This was in issue #76, published on Oct. 1, 2002, and
is continued in issue #77, Novae. 1, 2002. I will read them again when
get a chance, and if you go to the archives of this list, you can find

I have studied Mahayana Buddhism for over ten years and have taken many
teachings, including tenets, which is hard to get in the west, and I,
personally, do not think she was one, but the whole issue is a little
problematic and confusing and worth delving very deeply into, as there
much to be gained. I am open to enquiry on this subject at any time.
has started to sway me, a little, is certain material that was recently
out here, by Daniel, I believe (but I am not sure) in which a section of
writing is quoted which suggests to me that she had at least a partial
understanding of the doctrine of dependent origination (interconnecting
mutually supporting causality or whatever you want to call it) upon
the whole teaching of Mahayana Buddhism is based.

If you go to the theosophy study list, whose archives are accessible and
very user friendly, you will find and type into search "Jerry S and
Buddhism and Blavatsky" you will find 141 messages on this topic. All
words are make in red in each message, so it is very easy to peruse.

You can also read my message on this list of Jan 14, "A New Day and the
is on the Grasses," and the response of, I believe Morton to me, which
very good. The message, "Dew..." goes in this subject in a little bit of
detail, and I am prepared to answer any questions and go further into
subject in the spirit of enquiry. Much thanks to Daniel (I believe it
Daniel) who put out the quote which has given me a slightly different
perspective, in that it suggests she did have some kind of understanding
Mahayana teaching, and now I will be able to approach enquiring into
subject with a broader view.

I will answer the second question in your message soon, in a separate
as it is too important. Sorry if my words sounded a little harsh, but
if I had been too sweet, we would end up covered with sap and never yet
to make honey. Sincerely, Wry .

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Hejka-Ekins" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 8:29 PM
Subject: RE: Theos-World Re[6]: Essential Unity--and Bailey on

> Hello Wry,
> Your message below leaves me very confused. Please tell me where
> Blavatsky claimed to be a Mahayana Buddhist. I'm aware that she did
> take pansal in Ceylon. I suppose one could conclude from that act
> she is a Theravada Buddhist. But that is not the same as Mahayana,
> would I take it to mean that her writings were ever intended to be
> representative of Buddhism in any form. Also, why do you believe that
> Buddhist of either school would consider the statement below to be one
> of ignorance, and one that perpetuates suffering?
> Thanks
> --j
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wry []
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 7:28 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Re[6]: Essential Unity--and Bailey on
> Mohammedanism
> HI. Did Alice Bailey say the below? Madame Blavatsky claimed to be a
> Mahayana Buddhist. If you stretch it really far, you could perhaps
> possibly
> fit her into this category, at least as a person aspiring to be one,
> the
> person who said the below is no Buddhist, Mahayana or otherwise.
> There is no way to fit her into this category. So this is one
> difference between the two. People on here might not think it
> significant,
> but a Buddhist would consider her not only to be ignorant, but to be
> perpetrating human suffering. Sincerely, Wry p.s. This message has
> nothing
> to do with people in the United Nations, whoever they are. I will
> comment on
> this later, but if you want to change the world, learn how to do
> consciously. This is what real knowledge of scales (seven) can be used
> for.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Davis" <>
> To: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <>
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 6:38 PM
> Subject: Theos-World Re[6]: Essential Unity--and Bailey on
> Mohammedanism:
> >
> > In every land down the ages men have sought to foist their personal,
> > religious interpretations of truth, of [126] the Scriptures and of
> > God upon the mass of men. They have taken the Bibles of the world
> > have attempted to explain them, passing the ideas they find through
> > the filter of their own minds and brains and in the process
> > stepping down the meaning. Not content with this, their followers
> > forced these man-evolved interpretations upon the unthinking and
> > ignorant. Every religion - Buddhism, Hinduism in its many aspects,
> > Mohammedanism and Christianity - has produced a flock of
> > minds who have sought (usually quite sincerely) to understand what
> > God is supposed to have said, who have formulated doctrines and
> > on this basis of what they thought God meant and their words and
> > ideas have, therefore, become religious law and the irrefutable
> > truths of countless millions. In the last analysis, what have you?
> > The ideas of some human mind - interpreted in terms of his period,
> > tradition and background - about what God said in some Scripture
> > has been subjected during the centuries to the difficulties and the
> > mistakes incident to constant translation - a translation often
> > on oral teaching.
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> >
> >
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 

[Back to Top]

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