Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00544)

Hi. I do not perceive the function or purpose of what you have written, and
would appreciate it if you could tell me. In any case, I have never said she
was a Mahayana Buddhist, as her work has a distinctly non-Buddhist flavor,
as she speaks again and again of a first or primal cause, and this is
contrary to the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism. It is (some) theosophists
who are saying her teaching was Buddhist and maybe even Mahayana Buddhist.
Sometimes things are not so cut and dried, which is what I am beginning to
realize, and this is a lesson for me. The truth of the matter is that she
was what she was.

I personally do not want people to get the wrong idea about what Mahayana
Buddhism is or isn't, but I am not even sure anymore that this matters that
much. I think I was "identified" with it. In any case, it is interesting
and perhaps valuable to enquire into what is and is not the teaching of
Mahayana Buddhism, and maybe someone will learn something from this, maybe
even me.

You refer to her writings too much. Some people have suggested that this is
not really what theosophy is about or how it should be approached. The
material you put out frequently seems (to me) to be not really pertinent,
whereas when one other person, Daniel, puts out Blavatsky quotes and the
quotes of others, he is able to make simple points and his meanings are
clear as day. He has already put out evidence to demonstrate that she
understood, to a degree, the concept of dependent origination, and was
inspired by this. If she was able to generate what is called the greater
boddhichitta, or unconventional loving kindness, and was teaching the
doctrine of dependent origination, then maybe she was a Mayahana Buddhist.
but even if she was just beginning to grasp the concept of dependent
origination and was still sort of between two stools, as being still
attached to the idea of a primal cause, this is so human. Maybe a great wave
of compassion touched her from the east and generated her to do something
that benefited many people. The message to me from Nick Weeks on January 15,
in which he responded to my dew message (sorry, I got confused in my earlier
message today, about who it was) touched me very much. It was so beautiful.

But it does not really matter exactly what she was or was not. That is
looking at things backwards, in my opinion, and drains a potential learning
opportunity of joyful vitality and of its active force. She was no
authority, nor am I, nor are you, yet you treat her as such..It is only
valuable, if one is a theosophist (according to what I am hearing from many
on here) if one uses this as an opportunity to bring about a universal
brotherhood.

As far as "clues to these events of pre-history," why would you want to have
them? Honestly, to me, this makes no sense. I am putting this in mild
language and very kindly, though my words may seem harsh. Everything we are
today carries with it all the history of humanity we will ever need to know.
This is my opinion. The approach you expound is a form of clinging. IF you
even get to the soft white light (but not the clear light) this way, you may
end up stuck, in a state of limbo, holding onto it like a zombie.

I have not read everything she has written, but I believe she had mixed
motives, which is human. One of these was surely to bring certain teachings
to the west in a form which westerners could assimilate them. From what I
have seen, I believe this to have been her primary motive, and a noble one.
IF Krishnamurti is considered to have been a result of her efforts, however
much of a mish-mash and conflicted situation he seemed to have emerged from,
then she did something truly amazing, which I would call "greater doing." I
have spent thirty-three years in gratitude for having the opportunity of
reading the books of this great human being and of hearing him speak. Some
on here, who are not intimately familiar with his ideas, do not yet fully
understand the significance of this human being and the way he affected
humanity. I also believe Madame Blavatsky's writing influenced another
extraordinary individual, Gurdjieff, to a greater degree than most people
realize, and again, some may not understand the powerful effect Gurdjieff's
teachings have had upon twentieth century humanity.

(Some) people in the theosophy movement have demonstrated an interest in
Mahayana Buddhism, which has not been brought about by anything I have said
or done in the few months I have been on this list. In the very beginning, I
was critical, because of my own ignorance, when I should have been happy. I
am glad to see people at theosophical conferences speaking ion the subject
of Buddhism and identifying Buddhism with theosophy. Speaking for myself,
and using my own discrimination, I believe this is NOT necessarily the best
time on earth for anyone who wants to establish a universal brotherhood to
identify himself as a member of any religion, be it Buddhism or anything
else. It IS the time for enquiry to flower and for people to both develop
CONSCIENCE and to share with each other any kind of ideas that will lead to
less ignorance. The kind and quality of idea that will do so is that which
will not lead to further clinging, but to a release of material that is
inappropriately clumped or configured. Certain kinds and qualities of ideas
will do this. Others will not. If people use their own simple words to
enquire, I believe this is much more helpful than referring back to the
writings of anyone else, even if these words are the words of Jesus or
Buddha or even Krishnamurti (whom I would personally place in the same
category), which in my opinion are much greater than the words of Madame
Blavatsky, however great (if even great) or meaningful her words may have
been. Again, it seems contrary to what I would consider to be the true
spirit of theosophy to keep referring to anyone as an authority. If people
take one simple passage of Madame Blavatsky's writing and enquire into it,
that might be a different story, but to keep referring back to her in the
way you do seems counterproductive and, as I have previously suggested, is
probably turning young people away from becoming involved in theosophy.
Sincerely, Wry

----- Original Message -----

From: <dalval14@earthlink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 6:37 PM
Subject: Theos-World RE: : Essential Unity-- BUDHISM - MAHAYANA -- BODHISM
(Or Wisdomism)


> Jan 21 2003
>
> Re Essential Unity-- BUDHISM - MAHAYANA -- BODHISM (Or
> Wisdomism)
>
> Dear Friends and Wry:
>
> If you have a copy of H P B's The VOICE OF THE SILENCE you will find
> there in the Introduction what she says of Mahayana Buddhism.
>
> From the outset when she started writing for the public, in ISIS
> UNVEILED, one finds that H P B assigned to the word "Buddhism" the
> meaning of BODHISM or WISDOM - and she carefully differentiated
> between that and the religious philosophy and observances that
> followed the life and teachings of the great Budha: Gautama, Siddartha
> Sakyamuni.
>
> She indicated in ISIS UNVEILED that this BODHISM antedated Hinduism
> ( I U I 1 289), .and she speaks it, using the phrase "pre-Vedic
> Buddhism." [ I U II 142-3, 160 ]
>
> In fact she stated that the ancient Aryan Brahmins, about a million
> years ago [ [ I U II pp. 156fn, 426, 435 ] started invading India
> where this wisdom has always been treasured. [ probably on the edges
> of the great Thar desert and in inaccessible places in Rajesthan. ]
> We find references to the Raj-Rishees (of whom Krishna refers in the
> BHAGAVAD GITA, chapter 4, verse 2 -- see THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY p.
> 223.)
>
> It is probable that the modern Jains have a relation to this ancient
> tradition and carry it forward in their literature and observances.[ I
> U II 323]
>
> She wrote of BODHISM which is a name given to ancient learning, study,
> science and includes a report on the findings of generations of
> students and Spiritual Adepts, the Great "Seers." See S D I 272-3
> for a description of this ancient School. In ISIS UNVEILED it is
> referred to openly in Vol. II on pp 98-103. All these things ought
> to be take into account.
>
> More in The SECRET DOCTRINE at: S D I 39-40, 48-9, 158; II 34fn,
> 637.
>
> MAHA-YANA = GREAT PATH -- originated AFTER Buddha's death. S D I
> 39. But probably is a continuation of the same MAHA-YANA that exists
> as a common tradition with all the Buddhas of antiquity. See for
> instance, MAHATMA LETTERS p. 41 (top) and p. 48 (bottom) where the
> mysterious PLANETARY SPIRIT (who strikes the KEY-NOTE of TRUTH) and
> then "disappears from the surface of our planet." In another place
> this GREAT ONE is identified with the LOGOS ( the "Word made Flesh").
>
> As one goes through the original literature of theosophy one discovers
> still more clues to these event of pre-history.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dallas
>
> ====================
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wry
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 11:42 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Essential Unity--
> 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 in
> it other of his messages, and I believe a whole theosophical
> conference
> somewhere, I think in LA, was devoted to the subject of Mahayana
> Buddhism,
> 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
> believe
> he did. These talks, or a synopsis of them, were posted in the
> newsletter
> from theos-world. This was in issue #76, published on Oct. 1, 2002,
> and it
> is continued in issue #77, Novae. 1, 2002. I will read them again
> when I
> get a chance, and if you go to the archives of this list, you can find
> them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>