Theos-Talk Archives (November 2003 Message tt00009)

Hallo Steve and all of you,


My views are:

An Interesting view you offer Steve.
But according to me - Blavatskys view was a true theosophical one.
And if one reads her writings carefully one will realise, that she is just
as interested in Shankara as she is in Kapila - but
she is in a theosophical manner (not using dead-letter reading - or exoteric
interpretations - of any "objectivé" labelling kind) - having a heart on all
the 6 Indian Schools of philosophy - and calling Theosophy the synthesis of
them.
(To the Sai Baba interested readers: Sai Baba has the same view. They all
teach spiritual wisdom - although the texts are now old - he says. --- So is
Sai Baba really a Theosophist - with a reputation similar to a certain
"liberal-christian-church now dead theosophist", just because he has said
that he is the Avatar of the Age ??? --- Well, only YOU can make the
answer - for yóurself. We shall now all persons on their spiritual fruits -
also readers of these sentences.)

And as I said before in my previous email - Vedanta is not for everyone to
learn - where they are right now in their lifes.


1.
First a quote confirming that claim of mine. But remember, that the
methaphysical key is the 4th of the seven keys.
And that the geometrical key is the 5th. of the seven - according to
Blavatsky. The 5th, 6th and 7th berlongs to the inititates.
The 4th have to be known before the others are revealed. (The reader could
meditate a while on that.)


I quote The Secret Doctrine --- [[Vol. 1, Page]] 269 THE FIRST CHAPTER OF
CREATION. --- SUMMING UP.
"As a whole, neither the foregoing nor what follows can be found in full
anywhere. It is not taught in any of the six Indian schools of philosophy,
for it pertains to their synthesis -- the seventh, which is the Occult
doctrine. It is not traced on any crumbling papyrus of Egypt, nor is it any
longer graven on Assyrian tile or granite wall. The Books of the Vedanta
(the last word of human knowledge) give out but the metaphysical aspect of
this world-Cosmogony; and their priceless thesaurus, the Upanishads -- 
Upa-ni-shad being a compound word meaning "the conquest of ignorance by the
revelation of secret, spiritual knowledge" -- require now the additional
possession of a Master-key to enable the student to get at their full
meaning. The reason for this I venture to state here as I learned it from a
Master.
The name, "Upanishads," is usually translated "esoteric doctrine." These
treatises form part of the Sruti or "revealed knowledge," Revelation, in
short, and are generally attached to the Brahmana


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

[[Vol. 1, Page]] 270 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.
portion of the Vedas,* as their third division. There are over 150
Upanishads enumerated by, and known to, Orientalists, who credit the oldest
with being written probably about 600 years B.C.; but of genuine texts there
does not exist a fifth of the number. The Upanishads are to the Vedas what
the Kabala is to the Jewish Bible. They treat of and expound the secret and
mystic meaning of the Vedic texts. They speak of the origin of the Universe,
the nature of Deity, and of Spirit and Soul, as also of the metaphysical
connection of mind and matter. In a few words: They CONTAIN the beginning
and the end of all human knowledge, but they have now ceased to REVEAL it,
since the day of Buddha. If it were otherwise, the Upanishads could not be
called esoteric, since they are now openly attached to the Sacred
Brahmanical books, which have, in our present age, become accessible even to
the Mlechchhas (out-castes) and the European Orientalists. One thing in
them -- and this in all the Upanishads -- invariably and constantly points
to their ancient origin, and proves (a) that they were written, in some of
their portions, before the caste system became the tyrannical institution
which it still is; and (b) that half of their contents have been eliminated,
while some of them were rewritten and abridged. "The great Teachers of the
higher Knowledge and the Brahmans are continually represented as going to
Kshatriya (military caste) kings to become their pupils." As Cowell
pertinently remarks, the Upanishads "breathe an entirely different spirit"
(from other Brahmanical writings), "a freedom of thought unknown in any
earlier work except in the Rig Veda hymns themselves." The second fact is
explained by a tradition recorded in one of the MSS. on Buddha's life. It
says that the Upanishads were originally attached to their Brahmanas after
the beginning of a reform, which led to the exclusiveness of the present
caste system among the Brahmins, a few centuries after the invasion of India
by the "twice-born." They were complete in those days, and were used for the
instruction of the chelas who were preparing for their initiation. "

So I will safely say that the Upanishads --- which Blavatsky calls the
"esoteric doctrine" is the methaphysicall version of the so ever sacret book
the esoteric Kiu-ti on the World-Cosmonogy. But a master-key is needed to
arrive at full understanding. - Agreed ?

And as stated in my previous email. Blavatsky said, that some of the
monasteries problably had some of the secret texts by Shankara in their
possesion.

It is also a fact, that Trevor Leggett has in around 1981 translated to
english a released text (as late as app. 1952) - where Shankara comments on
the Patanjali Yoga-Sutras. And Shankara finds no problems with this teaching
in his commentary.


2.
In one of her correspondances/articles named WHAT SHALL WE DO FOR OUR
FELLOW-MEN? - 1889
Article by H. P. Blavatsky - she states the following :

"Yet in the esotericism of the Upanishads, when correctly understood, and
our esotericism, there will not be found much difference. Nor have I ever
disputed any of the facts about Buddha as now brought forward; although
these are facts from only his exoteric biography. Nor has he invented or
drawn from his inner consciousness the philosophy he taught, but only the
method of his rendering it. Buddhism being simply esoteric Bodhism taught
before him secretly in the arcana of the Brahminical temples, contains, of
course, more than one doctrine of which the Lord Buddha never spoke of in
public. But this shows in no way that he did not teach them to his Arhats.
Again, between "attachment to worldly views or interests" and the study of
Cosmology, which is not "a worldly science" however, there is an abyss. One
pertains to religious and philosophical asceticism, the other is necessary
for the study of Occultism--which is not Buddhistic, but universal. Without
the study of cosmogony and theogony which teach the hidden value of every
force in Nature and their direct correspondence to, and relation with, the
forces in man (or the principles) no occult psychophysics or knowledge of
man as he truly is, is possible. No one is forced to study esoteric
philosophy unless he likes it, nor has anyone ever confused Occultism with
Buddhism or Vedantism.--H.P.B."
http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/WhatShallWeDoForOurFellowMen.htm

And my view is here in agreement with Blavatsky. Theosophy proper is not
Buddhism alone - and nor the vedanta teachings of the Upanishads.


3.
OCCULTISM VERSUS THE OCCULT ARTS - Article by H. P. Blavatsky - 1888.

"There are four (out of the many other) names of the various kinds of
Esoteric Knowledge or Sciences given, even in the esoteric Purânas. There is
(1) Yajna-Vidya,1 knowledge of the occult powers awakened in Nature by the
performance of certain religious ceremonies and rites. (2) Maha-vidya, the
"great knowledge," the magic of the Kabalists and of the Tantrika worship,
often Sorcery of the worst description. (3) Guhya-Vidya, knowledge of the
mystic powers residing in Sound (Ether), hence in the Mantras (chanted
prayers or incantations) and depending on the rhythm and melody used; in
other words a magical performance based on Knowledge of the Forces of Nature
and their correlation; and (4) ATMA-VIDYA, a term which is translated simply
"knowledge of the Soul," true Wisdom by the Orientalists, but which means
far more.
This last is the only kind of Occultism that any theosophist who admires
Light on the Path, and who would be wise and unselfish, ought to strive
after. All the rest is some branch of the "Occult Sciences," i.e., arts
based on the knowledge of the ultimate essence of all things in the Kingdoms
of Nature--such as minerals, plants and animals--hence of things pertaining
to the realm of material nature, however invisible that essence may be, and
howsoever much it has hitherto eluded the grasp of Science. Alchemy,
Astrology, Occult Physiology, Chiromancy, exist in Nature and the exact
Sciences--perhaps so called, because they are found in this age of
paradoxical philosophies the reverse--have already discovered not a few of
the secrets of the above arts. But clairvoyance, symbolised in India as the
"Eye of Siva," called in Japan, "Infinite Vision," is not Hypnotism, the
illegitimate son of Mesmerism, and is not to be acquired by such arts. All
the others may be mastered and results obtained, whether good, bad or
indifferent; but Atma-Vidya sets small value on them. It includes them all
and may even use them occasionally, but it does so after purifying them of
their dross, for beneficent purposes, and taking care to deprive them of
every element of selfish motive."

http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/OccultismVersusTheOccultArts.htm


4.
Actually If you try the index of The Secret Doctrine you will get a
different view on who is most popular of Kapila and Shankara.
Try these links:
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd-index/dx-sa.htm ( index on
Shankararchya)
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd-index/dx-ka-kd.htm ( index on Kapila)


5. True theosophy is in fact not described using labels.
--- Theosophy is truth without form. ---

Let us remmeber this.

A few philosophical words:
"Philosophy that cannot be understood, scriptures that are not
practiced - the present world has plenty of these - it is a waste to
talk of them."
"The Teacher and the taught together produce the teachings."


So Blavatskys teachings are rather complex.
Life has learned me, that Atma-Vidya as taught by Shankara is allright, -
and there are other paths as well.

But it is true: Atma=Brahman
Bhagavad Gita is another good example on the force there is behind the
Upanishads !


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "stevestubbs" <stevestubbs@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 10:54 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re: re Jesus, Pistis Sophia, "garment"


> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
> theosophy@a...> wrote:
> > Hallo all of you,
> >
> >
> >
> > My views are:
> >
> > 1.
> > The nearest exponent of the Esoteric philosophy "is the Vedanta as
> expounded
> > by the Advaita Vedantists," (Secret Doctrine, I, p. 55). (Bhagavad-
> Gita, W.
> > Q. Judge, p. 108)
> > http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/ctg/ve-vz.htm
>
> That is an interesting comment in view of the fact that Blavartsky's
> system was objective dealism whereas Sankara's system wa ssubjective
> idealism. We have in other words a radical difference of opinion at
> the very core of the two systems. Blavatsky's theories are much
> closer to Kapila than to Sankara.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>