Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00654)

In a message dated 01/27/03 6:16:04 AM, bhakti.eohn@verizon.net 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
>Amitabha.

"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:
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html

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." 
(HPB)

LHM