Theos-Talk Archives (July 2009 Message tt00525)

Dear friends

My views are:


I guess only very few replied to the below e-mail from D. Caldwell june 2009.
I have pondered it for a while.

So I will give a few words to the article to consider although I am not calling myself a specialist in Buddhistic doctrines.


A short reply.

I find myself in disagreement with Mr. Reigle.
The reason why is that H. P. Blavatsky  (HPB) did a great job in seeking to create a synthesis of western esoterical teachings with middle eastern as well as eastern doctrines - all of the Buddhist branches included. Here doctrines had to be forwarded to a Western audience in the old  sort of dark 19th century, who would be quite unprepared to any kind of talk about "void", "emptiness", and "not-I" etc.


I would suggest that those who still agree's with Mr. Reigle read and compare Mr. Reigles article ( http://tinyurl.com/pm7zr5 - PDF - 37 pages) with the following links and references given by me.

When they have done this, I hope that they will conclude with me, that Mr. Reigles objection certainly must be based one either or all of the following issues: 
A. Reading Tsong-Kha-Pa's words litterally, 
B. Reading H. P. Blavatsky's synthesis teachings literally, something the SD never intended as mentioned at the end of vol. II, 
C. Taking other Buddhists quotes and statements literally, 
D. Not accepting the need for a deep study of the SD so to understand its various definitions of various words. - 
E. Perhaps ignorance about the following two diagrams.


REFERENCES AND ARTICLES:

1, TWO IMPORTANT DIAGRAMS on HPB's Dzyan Stanzas teachings:
( Have a look at the two IMPORTANT diagrams in the links provided here:
Master KH's diagram: http://blavatskyarchives.com/koothoomicommentaries.htm 
HPB's diagram p. 524: http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v12/y1890_053.htm )

2. Katinka Hesselink provides som interesting early quotes from H. P. Blavatsky
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/metaphys/empty.htm

3. Some Jonangpa Buddhists definitions on Svabhava or Svabhavat:
The following article would be well to have in mind, because it shows the various disagreements within the Buddhistic branches. And it will be clear to the readers, that H. P. Blavatsky's views - also - follow the Zhentong view mentioned in this article.
Svabhava has more than one level of use as far as I read the article.
http://www.jonangpa.com/node/1235

4.
H. P. Blavatsky mentioned  Svâbhâvat seven times in the Secret Doctrine vol. 1+2.
(SD. vol. 1, p. 46, 52, 61, 98, 98, 635, 635 + SD. vol. 2, p. 115, (Svâbhâvat, Mother-space))

5.
SD. vol. 1, p.8 says:
"The Occultists are, therefore, at one with the Adwaita Vedantin philosophers as to the above tenet. They show the impossibility of accepting on philosophical grounds the idea of the absolute ALL creating or even evolving the "Golden Egg," 

6.
H. P. Blavatsky says:
"Svabhavat, the "Plastic Essence" that fills the Universe, is the root of all things. Svabhavat is, so to say, the Buddhistic concrete aspect of the abstraction called in Hindu philosophy Mulaprakriti." (SD. vol. p. 61) - (with emphasis on the word "concrete", because Svabhavat is in fact - the third aspect - in HPB's and Master KH's diagram on the unmanifested trinity, and refered to in the link given in the above, in the beginning of this article. )

7.
Try to read The Secret Doctrine, vol. 1. p. 130-  "Parabraham is not this or that, it is not even consciousness, as it cannot be related to matter or anything conditioned. "

8.
On the Internet we have various websites defining Svabhava:
Wikipedia on Nagarjuna or Svabhava says:  
- "intrinsic nature", "essential nature" or "essence." 
- or 
- For Nagarjuna, it is not merely sentient beings that are empty of atman; all phenomena are without any svabhava, literally "own-nature" or "self-nature". I find these definitions to be in accordance with H. P. Blavatsky's views on that Svabhava is never evolved, and that it is unmanifest nature.


Any comments?


 

M. Sufilight


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: danielhcaldwell 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 8:57 AM
  Subject: Theos-World Paper on Tsongkhapa & the Teachings of the Wisdom Tradition





  I call attention to a paper written by David Reigle titled:

  "Tsongkhapa and the Teachings of the Wisdom Tradition"

  This paper can be found online at:

  http://tinyurl.com/pm7zr5

  Comments welcomed.

  Daniel
  http://blavatskyarchives.com



  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]