Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00651)

> From: "Koshek Swaminathan" <arasophia@yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Theos-World Re: Were the Mahatmas Buddhists?
> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 16:29:35 -0000
>
>
> > From my understanding and independent research, I'm not sure if we really 
> know
> what the Buddha actually taught. If we look at the Dhammapahda, which is
> considered the most authentic work on the sayings of the Buddha, we find 
> that
> there is an entire chapter on instructions to Brahmanas. If we believe that 
> he
> was against the Brahman tradition, it appears that he may have been 
> actually
> promoting it from an esoteric standpoint.
I think it's safe to say the Buddha was against the caste system and its 
repressiveness. I don't think he promoted "Brahmanism" at all, so there 
wasn't any esoteric standpoint.
He was just addressing the Brahmanas individually as "those who endeavor to 
live the holy life". Just as they called him "Lord", "Bhagwhan".


> The Buddhism of Ashoka's time does not seem to reflect the same religion we
> have today. For a Buddhist kingdom, there seems to be much worship of
> tradtional Hindu gods. Most historians say that this is because Ashoka was
> tolerant of other beliefs but what if Buddhism not only tolerated but 
> accepted
> those traditions, only that it brought the ancient Esoteric Wisdom back 
> into
> Hindu practice?
The deity-worship was entrenched then, as now. Gautama, I believe sought to 
dissuade men from worshipping forms of any sort as being an inferior 
practice. His teaching was that there is no reality in form, even in that of 
divine personages.
I'm reminded of Sri Ramakrishna's recounting- he was, of course, a gone 
devotee of the Mother- his telling of how he finally, reluctantly even- 
crossed from the worship of her in form to the formless- that is a crucial 
point of the Buddha's message, imo. To not get sidetracked by the form.

> We also need an explanation for why there is no written record of the Adi
> Shankara ever criticising Buddhism. This was pointed out by the past
> Shankaracharya of Kanchipooram in his seminal work Sanatana Dharma. What is
> even stranger is that it was the Adi Shankra who introduced the idea that
> Gautama Buddha was the 9th incarnation of Vishnu. Was Adi Shankara another
> Esoteric Buddhist?
I have heard that the incarnation of Shankara- and maybe Blavatsky mentions 
this- was brought about to achieve a sort of balancing of what had happened 
to the teachings of the Buddha- that they had been quickly perverted into a 
nihilistic form that was poisoning the root of the teaching.

Of course, Shankara's devotional style was diametrically opposed, and modern 
buddhists revile his movement as a "killer" of 'pure' buddhism. But, most 
likely its 'spirit' was already dead.
Shankara would not criticise Buddhism- nor was he there to reform that 
which was a reform movement. What explanation is needed?

<snip>

> All this seems to indicate to me that Esoteric Buddhism may be the original
> Buddhism, that it may have promoted brotherhood and the open comparative 
> study
> of spiritual traditions in the light of this Esoteric knowledge. Much like
> Freemasonry in that is open to all religions as an expression of the one 
> Truth.
> It would also indicate that the Mahayana school in Tibet may be closer to 
> the
> original teachings than the Theravada. These are just working assumptions 
> but
> they seem just as good to me as the traditional working assumptions of
> historians.
It should be safe to say that the most intimate teachings of the buddha, 
nor, ftm, the Zen Patriarchs were not made available in any of the exoteric 
traditions passed down.

> Koshek Swaminathan
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Pedro Oliveira <prmoliveira@y...> wrote:
> > One of the puzzles in theosophical history and
> > literature is that HPB's Teachers, the Mahatmas,
> > declared themselves to be Buddhists, as in this
> > well-known passage from the Mahatma Letters:
> >
> > "Therefore, we deny God both as philosophers and as
> > Buddhists." (ML 88, chronological)
> >
> > And yet, the system they taught, sometimes called
> > "Aryan-Arhat Esoteric Doctrine", includes as one of
> > its pivotal points Atma, or the seventh principle, the
> > One Self, as well as Soul.
> >
> > Apparently, there are no known school in Buddhism that
> > accepts Atma as a fundamental reality. The denial of
> > Atma is one of the cardinal principles in Buddhist
> > philosophy. Two well-known scholars explain why:
> >
> > "Buddhism stands unique in the history of human
> > thought in denying the existence of such a Soul , Self
> > or Atman. According to the teaching of the Buddha,
> > the idea of self is an imaginary, false belief which
> > has no corresponding reality." (Walpola Rahula, "What
> > the Buddha Taught")
I think that is the point of nihilism where buddhism went sour, as I 
mentioned above. Many of Gautama's teachings mention the atma and soul, in a 
not-impermanent light. What is misunderstood, imo, by exoteric buddhism is 
that atma = self, i.e. impermanent ego; and Atma = Self, i.e. Ego; and there 
is a huge difference that is not well defined or understood.

> > "Sakkayaditthi (Substance-view) is avidya (ignorance)
> > par excellence, and from it proceed all passions.
> > Denial of Satkaya (atman or Substance) is the very
> > pivot of the Buddhist metaphysics and doctrine of
> > salvation." (T.R.V. Murti, "The Central Philosophy of
> > Buddhism - A Study of the Madhyamika System")
> >
> > Can someone explain which Buddhism the Mahatmas
> > subscribed to?
> >
> > Pedro
I would venture that the Mahatmas, being privy to the very words of the 
Buddha- as well as very likely having been Arhants of His Circle, subscribe 
to the Buddhism of the Buddha.

If they maintain there is no God, yet there is Atman, it is the most 
wonderful teaching in itself. They reify Gautama's own message- don't get 
caught up into anthropormorphizing a face onto the Infinite- for that is 
infinite foolishness. What a brilliant, brilliant thing Gautama must have 
taught.

That, I feel is what actually happened when it is recounted that whenever a 
person asked the Buddha if there is a God, he would sink into silence- I 
believe, not just silence, but he would go straight to Beyond the Beyond.

regards-

Ali

_________________________________________________________________
Get reliable access on MSN 9 Dial-up. 3 months for the price of 1! 
(Limited-time offer) 
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup&pgmarket=en-us&ST=1/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/