Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00664)

"Many prefer to call themselves Buddhists not because
the word attaches itself to the ecclesiastical system
built upon the basic ideas of our Lord Gautama
Buddha’s philosophy, but because of the Sanskrit word
“Buddhi” — wisdom, enlightenment; and as a silent
protest to the vain rituals and empty ceremonials
which have in too many cases been productive of the
greatest calamities." 
ML.120 KH

Too many confusion have been caused betwenn students
of Theosophy because of some statements of the
Mahatmas about Buddhism. Of course they have a great
sympathy for the Buddhist philosophy, but not the form
of Buddhism that we know today. I think the quote
below also give some light on the subject:

"The Mahatma K.H. was a Kashmiri Brahman, but the time
we meet him in the letters, he was a monk of the
Gelugpa or “Yellow Hat” division of Tibetan Buddhism.
He refers to himself in the letters as a “Cis- and
Trans-Himalayan cave-dweller.” H.P.B. says in Isis
Unveiled that Cis-Himalayan is a very ancient Aryan
doctrine, sometimes called Brahmanical, but really
having nothing to do with Brahmanism as we now
understand it. Trans-Himalayan is a Tibetan esoteric
doctrine, pure, or “old Buddhism.” Both Cis- and
Trans-Himalayan come from one source originally — the
universal Wisdom Religion."

The universal wisdom religion whose a very small part
of teachings was published in the Secret Doctrine. I
think it's not only an oral tradition but also, as
H.P.B. mentions they keep many manuscrits and writings
we can't access. 

Erica Letzerich



--- Pedro Oliveira <prmoliveira@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thank you all for your replies. The question asked
> was
> not a rhetorical one. It is clear that the Mahatmas
> taught an esoteric form of Buddhism, but for me it
> is
> difficult to reconcile some of its teaching
> (particularly regarding the seven principles in the
> human constitution) and the traditional Buddhist
> teaching of anatma. None of the answers I have
> received seem to have addressed this question.
> 
> Dallas, for example, seems to indicate that Atma,
> from
> the Mahatmas' point of view, is not a philosophical
> concept but a principle. But is not "Esoteric
> Philosophy" one of the synonymns of the
> Wisdom-Tradition? Incidentally, Dallas, I don't
> doubt
> their existence at all. My own study of Theosophy,
> for
> the past thirty years, is enough for me to consider
> their reality as one of the most inspiring facts in
> existence.
> 
> Chuck mentioned that they could have presented
> themselves to Sinnett as Buddhists just to make it
> easier for Sinnett to understand them. But the
> overwhelming evidence in their letters and in HPB's
> writings that they had a definite connection with
> Tibetan Buddhism and the Gelugpa school does not
> support this view (K.H. is said to have participated
> in some activities of the Tashi-Llhunpo lamasery in
> Tzi-gadze).
> 
> Koshek presented a compreheensive historical
> perspective. One of the ironies about the
> relationship
> between Hinduism and Buddhism in India is that
> Buddha's teaching represented a very definite
> challenge to the Brahmanical system, then dominated
> by
> exoteric ritualism. That Buddhism did not flourish
> in
> India and had to go to Tibet and South-East Asia,
> China and Japan, where it became established as a
> tradition with many tributaries, seems to speak for
> itself. Then, later on, Buddha was made by the
> Hindus
> into an avatar of Vishnu! Incidentally, Koshek, Adi
> Sankara did refute the Buddhist doctrine of
> sunyavada.
> You can find the refutation in Sankara's
> "Dakshinamurti Stotra", chapter 6.
> 
> While discussing the doctrine of Root-Races, K.H.
> had
> this to say to Sinnett:
> 
> "En passant, to show to you that not only were not
> the
> “races” invented by us, but that they are a cardinal
> dogma with the Lama Buddhists and with all who study
> our esoteric doctrine, I send you an explanation on
> a
> page or two in Rhys Davids’ Buddhism, — otherwise
> incomprehensible, meaningless and absurd. It is
> written with the special permission of the Chohan
> (my
> Master) and — for your benefit. No Orientalist has
> ever suspected the truths contained in it, and — you
> are the first Western man (outside Tibet) to whom it
> is now explained." (letter 93B, chronological)
> 
> Is it possible that the Mahatmas' Buddhism was some
> sort of inner (esoteric) tradition which only became
> known to the world at large through the writings of
> HPB and the correspondence with Sinnett? Could it be
> an oral tradition?
> 
> Pedro
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on
> time.
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> theos-talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
> 
> 


=====
Erica Letzerich
ICQ- 16621711 
"The Truth will set you free, but first will make you miserable"





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html