Re: Theos-World "Buddha is the great compassionate Father of all living beings" Master Hsuan Hua
Jan 28, 2003 00:33 AM
In a message dated 01/27/03 6:16:04 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
>FOR THE BUDDHA IS THE
>GREAT COMPASSIONATE FATHER OF ALL LIVING BEINGS.
Couldn't this be, more correctly, the Adi-Buddha?
>THE FOLLOWING QUOTATIONS ARE FROM THE
>"Records of the Life of the Venerable Master Hsuan Hua", Volume One,
>Compiled and translated by American Bhikshuni Heng Yin.
>This book was published in 1981 by the Dharma Realm Buddhist University
>Buddhist Text Translation Society, Talmage, California, USA.
>"Although Rahula [Sakyamuni's son by Yasodhara] was the Buddha's son,
>the Buddha doesn't have only one son; he has three kinds of sons:
>From an esoteric metaphysical point of view this actually refers to the
essential triune nature, analogues to Atma-Buddhi-Manas, of the primal Monad
(see my previous post 1/27) ... That, itself, and each aspect of which, is an
individual (but interconnected) entity or conscious "being" existing at
different levels of awareness... As are all reflected Monads descending down
to individual sentient beings (and their internal Universes of Monads or
"lives") who are created (by the laws of Karma) in the image of these higher
beings, and capable of ultimately becoming equal to them in both form and
consciousness. All these "beings" may have "personalized" attributes, as
Maya, but, their Absolute Origin out of the Zero-Point Void and its
"Spinergy" or "abstract motion" that, having no Mayavic attributes, is
entirely impersonal. (This noumena or "rootless root" of both spirit or
consciousness and matter is the real Divine "Beness" or theosophical "God.")
The Buddhist/Vaishnava personifications of the higher conscious entities
apparently was necessary to instill in illiterate and ignorant common
people's minds, before and at the time of the Buddha, the idea that they must
be in awe of, worship, make "sacrifice" to, or propitiate, and obey the
ritualized edicts and commandments of such higher beings in order to achieve
individual salvation. Couldn't this, like most commanded religious rituals,
sacrifices, austerities, etc., be considered a form of "brainwashing"?
Are such methods necessary today, when individuals of much higher literacy,
greater scientific knowledge and ecological understanding, can learn the same
fundamental esoteric truths explained in the language of this age directly
from the formerly occult "wisdom teachings" disclosed by HPB in the Secret
doctrine? And, therefrom, learn to teach, understand the needs (regardless
of race, color, age, creed, sex, or any other distinctions) and work toward
achieving a "Universal Brotherhood of ALL Mankind"... Fully independent and
free, as a "diversity in unity," to choose their own ways of "life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness" -- rather than a sectarian
"religious-government" requiring homogeneous uniformity's, and ritualized
austerities, theological dogmas, vicarious atonement's, living Messiahs, and
beliefs in personal Gods with weird names and complex genealogies? I should
think that God, if he exists as such, and is within every one of us, should
be interested in experiencing *everything* -- while being "loved" by everyone
(as each one loves oneself when one is happy). Else, why manifest as diverse
Mankind in the first place -- if, as the divine wisdom teaches us, that
requires a "Desire for sentient LIFE in the Mind of God"? Or, is that only
in the Minds of the first Chohans or Buddha's who turned to the Light?
(Interesting to find out what happened to those that turned to the Dark.)
Couldn't this theosophical method be the "shortest" path to salvation --
requiring instant recognition that each individual IS the reflection of the
Supreme Spirit and is, therefore, responsible for both his own, along with
the world's karma? Isn't "living the life" taught by theosophy (as its
"Heart Doctrine") equivalent to understanding and following the "Four Noble
Truths" and the "Eight Fold Path" of the Buddha, the "Sermon on the Mount" of
Jesus, and the "Ten Commandments" of Moses?
>1. True Sons. One often reads in the Sutras, "... headed by the Dharma
>Prince Manjusri..." The Buddha is the Dharma King, and the bodhisattvas
>are the Buddha's genuine sons.
>[Manjusri is a Form of Balarama as the original Master of compassion-wisdom
>in PL Buddhism. All bodhisattvas are ultimately empowered by Lokesvara
>(Vishnu) and Manjusri is one of His forms as the
> original Revelator and Spiritual Master.]
Not to deny the validity or value of the Mahayana teachings... But, do we
need to know this genealogy and make obeisance to it, or read the Sutras --
in order to understand and follow the same "revelation" given us in the
Secret Doctrine that Manjusri gave to his disciples -- who passed it down the
line from ancient times, while interpreting it to fit the living conditions
and understandings of their disciples, and so on? Can't the Bodhisattva vow
"to forsake Nirvana for the sake of all Sentient beings" be taken by the
theosophical Chela, who is willing to follow the path of the "true" (Brothers
of Light) Arhat/bodhisattvas -- through one's own self devised and self
determined study and efforts, based on the teachings in the Secret Doctrine?
>2. Initiated Sons. These are the Arhants who, out of ignorance, hold to
>the principle of one-sided emptiness and have not attained the principle
>of the Middle way.
Doesn't theosophy teach the "Middle way" far clearer (for most westerners of
a specific technological culture and mind bent) than the original Buddha's
exoteric teachings -- which requires a knowledge of Sanskrit and/or reliance
on interpretations by his disciples, as well as a total denial of one's
economic and material relationships, necessary for survival in this modern
world? Can't one be a true, dual sided "emptiness/fullness" theosophist
without dependence on Buddhist genealogies and ritualized practices? (See my
discussion of the Monad in a previous post.) Therefore, isn't theosophy
equivalent to the highest level of Buddhistic or Vaishnava teachings --
without the personal God and all the theological trappings?
>3. Uninitiated Sons. Common men who do not know how to cultivate the
>*upside-down, but they are still the Buddha's sons, FOR THE BUDDHA IS THE
>GREAT COMPASSIONATE FATHER OF ALL LIVING BEINGS. [emphasis mine]
>The Wonderful Dharma Lotus Blossom Sutra speaks of us as poor, lost sons.
>We should quickly return to our great compassionate father. We all have a
>share in the Buddha's family. "
>*Upside-down may refer to the salvific descending Other-power Dharma of
"Upside down," esoterically, could actually refer to the "Tree of Life" which
has its roots at the top (the first and outer field emanated out of the
primal zero-point spinergy of the universal Spirit or Consciousness) and its
branches on the bottom -- descending down inside the outer sphere as
"coadunate but not consubstantial, monadic " fields within fields, etc.
(Ref; The Kabbala "Sephirothal Tree" or the Brahman "Tree of Life") See
also, How It All Began:
This is the understanding that the conscious Universe, while originating from
the inside out, proceeds to involve from the outside in, or top down -- as
the great primal Monadic sphere of conscious energy forms its analogous inner
Monadic fields within fields within fields, descending or involving inward
and downward until the Self of all (represented by the Void or "empty"
zero-point singularity of the primal Monad) is invested in the evolved bodies
of men. This knowledge confirms that the "Spirit of the Godhead," or
Universal Self consciousness is within us all, and can be discovered and
"Self Realized" by following the "Eight Fold Path" or equivalent -- while
lifting the lower self to merge with the higher Self -- which is identical to
"Living the Life" of theosophy. So, what need is there for all this
theological "personalization" and its concurrent ritualized worshipful
practices for us Westernized theosophists?
Hope I haven't bent any Theistic, Atheistic, Gnostic, or Agnostic noses ...
(Although, I am one or the other myself, I suppose-- depending on who I am
talking to and about what.) </:-)>
"A theosophist is a member of no cult or sect, but a member of each and all."
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application