Re: Theos-World Blavatsky - Senzar - Avesta - Heart Sutra - Scham-bha-la (Balkh!?)
Nov 04, 2009 11:35 AM
by Morten Nymann Olesen
Yes, yes.
Allright, we just agree to disagre about the definition of the term. That is allright.
M. Sufilight
----- Original Message -----
From: Augoeides-222@comcast.net
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Blavatsky - Senzar - Avesta - Heart Sutra - Scham-bha-la (Balkh!?)
Morten,
Thanks for your reply and comments. As I have already stated my views and positions which remain as they were I don't have any reason to act as a bully pulpit for you to use to advance your own personal perspective viz, guru, HPB, CWL, Besant et all. I have never had anything to say in support of either CWL or Besant other than they have the right to think or publish. I utterly reject the "selfish" baloney who ever originates it as regards the Pratyeka's. It is the slobbering of the dualist lower mind from my pov. You can post excerpts until the cows come home but you won't change my view so we can just agree to disagree. I don't consider the Dalai Lama or the Gelugpa my mentor so it holds no sway here. I have already many times posted my personal opinion of the history of the sects of Tibet. I also reject completely the idea that a Pratyeka Buddha has no feelings for others or humanity, they take the same vows that all buddhist's take and that include the bodhisattva vow to return to help all beings cross to the other shore and to delay nirvana until it is accomplished. The Dharmakaya Vesture is not an intellectual platform it indicates the Absolute in my personal opinion and there is not either selfish or unselfish anything in it. As I said the Cosmic Buddhic principle begins Karma and enables karma as result of action in secondary reality even before there is a personality to pick arguements with lol.
It is obvious i am not here to gain esteem and worship and validation or even agreements, co-considerations, secondary allies, or any other such nonsense I am here to enjoy life as much as possible on a forum like this.
Regards,
John
s-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2009 9:14:31 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: Theos-World Blavatsky - Senzar - Avesta - Heart Sutra - Scham-bha-la (Balkh!?)
Dear John and friends
My views are:
Yes, there are different opinions about what a Pratyeka Buddha really is.
At Berzin Archives some of the info is available about it. But his website is not really quite esoterical from my point of view, and I guess also Blavatsky's....Yet the following are interesting to read...
1.
Here are some of the words from Berzin Archives:
Here are som words from the Dalai Lama himself in 1985 according to Berzin:
"The Disadvantages of Self-Cherishing
[In Namkapelâs text, the line from Togmey-zangpoâs edition of Geshe Chaykawaâs text, âBanish one thing as (bearing) all blame,â is moved here and the disadvantages of self-cherishing are given as commentary to the line. Pabongka follows this order.]
In regard to exchanging our attitudes about self and others, the text explains how all our problems and difficulties come from cherishing ourselves, while all our benefits and happiness come from cherishing others. The fact that shravakas and pratyekabuddhas are not capable of achieving the highest spiritual level, the highest spiritual goal, is due to their self-cherishing. So, from there on down, the blame for every disadvantage, every drawback that can be experienced can be placed on the self-cherishing attitude: in other words, selfishness. Very often, when people are unhappy, they want to point an accusing finger at others: âI am unhappy because this other person has done this or that.â In fact, all our unhappiness comes from self-centeredness, by which we consider ourselves so big and important that we point the finger at others as responsible for our unhappiness. In truth, all our problems and unhappiness come from the destructive impulses that arise from our own minds â in other words, karma and the disturbing attitudes."
M. Sufilight comment:
The Dalai Lama is in the above referring to the fact that "Pabongka" also known as the famous "Pabongka Rinpoche" (1878-1941) - Holder of the Ganden Oral Lineage, had the same view. And he moreover disliked political affairs.
I say, that Selfishness is always selfishness, although it might be wellmeaning from time to time. The Law of Karma is always swift and never fails. How can a Pratyeka Buddha, who do not care for others, and only cares for his or hers own liberation be called unselfish?
2.
In the following we will see, that - Alice L. Cleather - one of the former members of the Esoteric Section under H. P. Blavatsky explain to us, that the Dharmakaya Robe has - both - its unselfish and selfish bearers...And that Annie Besant within a few years after H. P. Blavatsky's death suddenly thought herself to be more knowledgefull than H. P. Blavatsky was (and when comparing the above note with the below - we can say that she thought herself even more knowldgefull than Pabongka Rinpoche was and our present Dalai Lama is.)
Alice L. Cleather stated further in "H. P. Blavatsky; A Great Betrayal"; 1922:
"In Mrs. Besant's edition both the passage and the
footnote I have quoted are omitted. Her reason for this
unscrupulous proceeding is given in a footnote on p. 416
of the so-called " third volume " of The Secret Doctrine.
In this note Mrs. Besant, from the heights of her then
newly-acquired Brahmanical wisdom, adopts the following
dictatorial and censorious tone towards her late
Teacher :
The Pratyeka Buddha stands on the level of the Buddha [I],
but His work for the world has nothing to do with its
teaching, and His office has always been surrounded with
mystery. The preposterous [sic] view that He, at such
superhuman height oi power, wisdom and love could be
selfish, is found in the exoteric books, though it is hard to
see how it can have arisen. H. P. B. charged me to correct
the mistake, as she had, in a careless moment, eofiied such a
statement elsewhere. A. B.
Observe the assumption of superior knowledge to
H. P. B.'s, and the use of the words " preposterous "
and " careless." To any real Oriental chela such an
attitude towards his Guru would be simply unthinkable ;
but we have seen how very quickly Mrs. Besant believed
herself to have soared far above the" chela on probation "
state of her H. P. B. days into that of an " Initiate "
and future " Supreme Ruler of the World of Gods and
men/' To such vanity and self-delusion everything is
possible. How different was the attitude of the real
Occultist who was spoken of by the Masters as " Our
Brother H. P. B.," yet called herself " a Chela of one
of Them " I
The passage I have italicised in the above footnote
by Mrs. Besant is untrue on the face of it to anyone
who knew, as I did, the loving care with which H. P.
B. prepared this unique little book of " Golden Precepts."
Moreover, she states in her Preface that the verses given
are selected from a much larger number which she
" learnt by heart." Further, H. P. B. not only repeated
but greatly amplified this statement about the Pratyeka
Buddha in her Theosophical Glossary, a fact which Mrs.
Besant had evidently forgotten when she concocted the
footnote quoted above. 1 The Pratyeka Buddha is
doubtless much that Mrs. Besant claims for him, but
she does not seem to know, or has probably forgotten,
that there are two classes of Masters, two " Paths "
(as this very section of The Voice oj the Silence shows) ;
that the " Pairs of Opposites " obtain on all planes of
Manifestation and Being, right up to the threshold of
the C/rananifested the ONE ; that, while there are
Masters oj COMPASSION, there must of necessity exist
also the opposite pole the wearers of the " Dharmakaya
robe," with all the power and knowledge which that
state implies, but without that Compassion which alone
makes a Master of the " Right Hand Path." 1 "
http://www.archive.org/details/hpblavatskygreat00clearich
- - -
3.
H. P. Blavatsky even said in a defense of Olcott attacking him of being a Papal institution:
"We know of "chelas" who being Hindus, are sure never to confuse such well known terms in their religion; but who, on the other hand, pursue Jivanmuktaship and the highest Theosophical Ethics through the royal road of selfish ambition, lies, slander, ingratitude and backbiting. Every road leads to Rome; this is evident; and there is such a thing in Nature as "Mahatma"-Dugpas" (THE ORGANlSATION OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY; by H.P. Blavatsky; estimated. 1886)
- - -
Of course, I do Not have any intentions of slandering and backbiting anyone...
Now, what do you think about this?
M. Sufilight
----- Original Message -----
From: Augoeides-222@comcast.net
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Blavatsky - Senzar - Avesta - Heart Sutra - Scham-bha-la (Balkh!?)
Morten,
Thanks for your reply and comments. Yes there are differences of opinion in this case. As I said, I don't hold the same view in spite of HPB, or even the historical stances that were publicly known. If a pratyeka attains the Dharmakaya then that is the goal ultimately of returning to original Nature, notice that they are referred to as Bodhisattva's. Bodhisattva's take to vow of return notwithstanding the fact that they may in one lifetime or more be solitary hermits or "saints". While the Buddha's of Compassion serve an expedient purpose of fully administering Compassion in all it's attributes, the true Reality in itself is absent of the need for compassion. The Compassion is solely directed to the gross secondary illusion in it's infinite manisfestation's.The Cosmic Buddhic Principle is where first Karma has possibility of appearing when the manisfested creation has progressed sufficiently and that is entirely relative to the "secondary" reality of the playground of actions. The "sport" is only sport. As we are in Reality a Unity there is no departing or arriving assigning labels is only secondary in it's nature and purpose and only has credibility relative to the secondary, the Dharmakaya remains ever totally absent of any mark or feature. I do not have any disagreement in regards to the pinnacle occupied by true Buddhic Compassion dfinitively and in doctrine. However despite theosophical and mahayana quotes there are also other teaching that eleborate the view I hold that it is but expedient means in this usage. We are all our other self temporarily differentiated for the Temporal Lila and Sport, Pratyeka's are not enemy in my personal opinion, even "dugpa" are but the secondary world reality as there is never scintilla of change in original Nature from whioch even they have origin and return in the ultimate process. Destruction has habitate and it is exclusively relegated to the secondary world.
In the Mahayana as well as Hinayana there are lots of commentary of histories of the lives of the bodhisattvas who were pratyeka in one moment of time and a Buddha in the next moment of time figuratively there is related that in many cases they went from one guru to another guru in series concatenating individual teachers teachings to develop understanding and steps on the path. This takes lifetimes upon lifetimes it is taught even in the "sudden" school it can be the case. While traversing this development it is natural proper step upon step in the microcosm of the individual efforts and has not selfish self nature as an inner directing emotion or attitude consciously postulated but rather simply the wheel of necessity itself perhaps to lay the ground for compassionate action in another moment of time.
I disagree that the Pratyeka "Buddha's" are simply "intellectual" one cannot obtain Dharmakaya Vesture by "intellectuality" alone. And I do not think Pratyeka's drop the "holding of the Precepts and Vows. And sometimes I wonder why HPB uses any form of the word "spirit" as the doctrine, and buddhism adhere to - there is no abiding self-, only clusters of force comprised of the shattered potshards off former selves, which are mutually attracted intermingled conglomerated into the economy of our secondary world constitutions ( as the forwarded "skandhas") contributing what they may from their secondary world who-ness's and identiveness's and existantial experiences, knowledge, persona, emotions, and all the rest if they can give rise to it and acheive some form of surfacing into the operative false ego that we compose in the secondary reality of the manisfest creation at the physical level .
The very act of "holding dispisement" violates Doctrine itself and one drops the Precepts in doing so. All "distinctions" are but "relative" secondary origination and fill rather than empty the void occluding truth.
There are several gradiations of the "Stream Swimmers" and of the Arhats designated in the various Buddhist vectors that offer a better view from my perspective. The Stream Swimmers feet never touch the Rivers bottom because they swim where the middle and deep stream of consciousness travels.
Regards,
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" < global-theosophy@stofanet.dk >
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2009 8:33:47 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: Theos-World Blavatsky - Senzar - Avesta - Heart Sutra - Scham-bha-la (Balkh!?)
Dear John and friends
My views are:
About Pratyeka Buddhists:
Now, I guess it depends on the deifnitions. I am not sure H. P. Blavatsky would agree with you.
Try to read the below words by Blavatsky to perhaps understand, why...
H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
"PratyÃka Buddha (S.k). The same as âPasi-Buddhaâ. The PratyÃka Buddha is a degree which belongs exclusively to the YogÃchÃrya school, yet it is only one of high intellectual development with no true spirituality. It is the dead-letter of the Yoga laws, in which intellect and comprehension play the greatest part, added to the strict carrying out of the rules of the inner development. It is one of the three paths to NirvÃna, and the lowest, in which a Yogiââwithout teacher and without saving othersââby the mere force of will and technical observances, attains to a kind of nominal Buddhaship individually; doing no good to anyone, but working selfishly for his own salvation and himself alone. The PratyÃkas are respected outwardly but are despised inwardly by those of keen or spiritual appreciation. A PratyÃka is generally compared to a âKhadgaâ or solitary rhinoceros and called Ekashringa Rishi, a selfish solitary Rishi (or saint). âAs crossing SansÃra (âthe ocean of birth and deathâ or the series of incarnations), suppressing errors, and yet not attaining to absolute perfection, the PratyÃka Buddha is compared with a horse which crosses a river swimming, without touching the ground.â (Sanskrit-Chinese Dict.) He is far below a true âBuddha of Compassionâ. He strives only for the reaching of NirvÃna."
http://theosophicalglossary.net/
H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
"Theosophy teaches self-culture . . . and not control," we are told. Theosophy teaches mutual-culture before self-culture to begin with. Union is strength. It is by gathering many theosophists of the same way of thinking into one or more groups, and making them closely united by the same magnetic bond of fraternal unity and sympathy that the objects of mutual development and progress in Theosophical thought may be best achieved. "Self-culture" is for isolated Hatha Yogis, independent of any Society and having to avoid association with human beings; and this is a triply distilled SELFISHNESS. For real moral advancement--there "where two or three are gathered" in the name of the SPIRIT OF TRUTH--there that Spirit or Theosophy will be in the midst of them. "
http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/OrganisationOfTheTheosophicalSociety.htm
I will say: Those who, as mentioned by Blavatsky, are without "no true spirituality" can hardly be called spiritual, when such a one is "doing no good to anyone, but working selfishly for his own salvation and himself alone"?
Blavatsky in fact said:
"The PratyÃkas are respected outwardly but are despised inwardly by those of keen or spiritual appreciation."
- - -
H. P. Blavatsky; a Great Betrayal" by Alice L. Cleather
"Tampering with H. P. Blavatsky's
writings.
THE result of Mrs. [Besant's first failure, through
harbouring doubts of her Teacher's bona fides and
esoteric knowledge, was soon manifested when she
began to publish new editions of H. P. B.'s works. The
first noteworthy example was her excision from The Voice
of the Silence of passages and notes, presumably out of
deference to Brahmin sentiment, which then governed
her actions. One of the last verses in " The Two Paths "
(the second of the " Three Fragments " forming the
little book) in the original edition (1889) begins thus :
" He who becomes Pratyeka Buddha, makes his obeisance
but to his Self/' In a footnote H. P. B. explains that
" Pratyeka Buddhas are those Bodhisattvas who strive
after and often reach the Dharmakaya robe after a
series of lives. Caring nothing for the woes of mankind
or to help it, but only for their own bliss, they enter
Nirvana and disappear from the sight and the hearts
of men. In Northern Buddhism a ' Pratyeka Buddha '
is a synonym of spiritual Selfishness."
In Mrs. Besant's edition both the passage and the
footnote I have quoted are omitted. Her reason for this
unscrupulous proceeding is given in a footnote on p. 416
of the so-called " third volume " of The Secret Doctrine.
In this note Mrs. Besant, from the heights of her then
newly-acquired Brahmanical wisdom, adopts the following
dictatorial and censorious tone towards her late
Teacher :
The Pratyeka Buddha stands on the level of the Buddha [I],
but His work for the world has nothing to do with its teaching, and His office has always been surrounded with
mystery. "
- - -
So each his own choice on the definitions...
M. Sufilight
----- Original Message -----
From: Augoeides-222@comcast.net
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Blavatsky - Senzar - Avesta - Heart Sutra - Scham-bha-la (Balkh!?)
Morten,
Thanks, nice read. Liked the link, which wasa good read also. Pratyeka Buddha's are not really "selfish" the word is a euphemism in the adorned language and not intended to belittle them, they have taken a path appropiate to their karma and stage of evolution. They like others are on the evanescent journey of transformation and most will someday become Buddha's, The Buddha is in each and all. Years ago I and others were told
"Seek not of I ------------------------- seek rather ------------------the energy of your being ---------------and----------------the SPACE that is about you"
"I come with ALL that I am --------------------- and ----------------------- ALL------------------- that is about me"
Just my personal opinion.
Regards,
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" < global-theosophy@stofanet.dk >
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2009 1:28:04 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Theos-World Blavatsky - Senzar - Avesta - Heart Sutra - Scham-bha-la (Balkh!?)
Dear friends
My views are:
Avesta Manthravani - Science of Vibrations and Colours - 22. sept. 2009
.......
"As we all know, since times immemorial, colour therapy has been used for curing various illnesses! Just as sound can create, destroy or heal, so can light. It is reported that the Greek sage Pythagoras learned the mysteries of healing under the Magi of Persia. He often used colour therapy to cure diseases. Likewise, even in ayurveda, different organs of the body are ascribed different colours, under the domain of different planetary influences."
.......
"Sometime in 1100 AD, a Jewish Rabbi named Judah and his disciples developed a theory on the mystical harmony of words in the Holy Scriptures. Later, the theory became popular and was even published in a book entitled STUDIES IN JEWISH MYSTICISM (Association for Jewish Studies, 1982, p. 91) authored by Joseph Dan. Following is a quote from the book which explains the theory:
" .the words and letters of the various prayers are not accidental, nor are they only vehicles for their literal meaning. Their order, especially their numbers, reflect a mystical harmony, a sacred divine rhythm. This mystical harmony can be discovered in historical events, directed by God; in nature, especially in the miraculous occurrences directly influenced by divine powers; and first and foremost, in the Bible. According to Rabbi Judah and the Ashkenazi Hasidic school in general, there can be nothing accidental in the Bible, not even the forms of letters, the punctuation, the vocalization, and especially- in the numerical structures-the number of certain letters, consonants or vowels in a certain verse; the number of words from the same root; the number and variety of divine names in a certain periscope, the absence of one or more letters from a chapter, and many other elements of the Scriptures besides their content.""
.......
"After nearly ten centuries of what Rabbi Judah stated regarding these elements of scriptural codes, the present day computers have demonstrated and confirmed each one of them. The divinely instituted liturgies, in their original unaltered words, are so numerically perfect that they can be compared to the combination of a locked safe; we need to dial that specific combination to establish contact with our creator.
Many international scholars, from various religious backgrounds, have reported this unique phenomenon of numerically perfect religious literature in other Holy Scriptures as well. The Quran, which was revealed in A.D. 610-630, is another scripture that is known to still exist in its original language and form and known to have mathematical coding throughout. To quote a Muslim scientist and computer expert named Rashad Khalifa, "All the parameters of the Quran--the numbers and sequences of chapters; the number of verses; the numbers assigned to each verse; the number of words; the number of certain specified letters; the number of words from the same root; the number and variety of divine names; the absence of one or more letters from a word, verse or chapter; the unique and often strange spellings of certain crucial words; and many other elements-- are all authenticated by its mathematical code"."
.......
"According to some scholars, Avesta is not a spoken language: it is a manthravani of the developed souls which carries a special arrangement of syllables to cause certain vibrations and colours thereby producing the desired results within the remitter (the worshipper) and his environment."
http://zoroastrians.net/2009/09/22/avesta-manthravani-science-of-vibrations-and-colours/
---
Now we have H. P. Blavatsky saying the following on Zend-sar....
TS Glossary, 1892, Posthumously:
"Zend-Avesta (Pahl.). The general name for the sacred books of the Parsis, fire or sun worshippers, as they are ignorantly called. So little is understood of the grand doctrines which are still found in the various fragments that compose all that is now left of that collection of religious works, that Zoroastrianism is called indifferently Fire-worship, Mazdaism, or Magism, Dualism, Sun-worship, and what not. The Avesta has two parts as now collected together, the first portion containing the VendÃdÃd, the VispÃrad and the Yasna; and the second portion, called the Khorda Avesta (Small Avesta), being composed of short prayers
p386
called GÃh, NyÃyish, etc. Zend means "a commentary or explanation", and Avesta (from the old Persian ÃbashtÃ, "the law". (See Darmsteter.) As the translator of the VendÃdÃd remarks in a foot note (see int. xxx.): "what it is customary to call 'the Zend language', ought to be named 'the Avesta language', the Zend being no language at all and if the word be used as the designation of one, it can be rightly applied only to the Pahlavi". But then, the Pahlavi itself is only the language into which certain original portions of the Avesta are translated. What name should be given to the old Avesta language, and particularly to the "special dialect, older than the general language of the Avesta" (Darmst.), in which the five Ghthas in the Yasna are written? To this day the Orientalists are mute upon the subject. Why should not the Zend be of the same family, if not identical with the Zen-sar, meaning also the speech explaining the abstract symbol, or the "mystery language," used by Initiates?"
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/ATUVWXYZ.htm#z
- - - - - - -
H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
"That which we call Form (RÃpa) is not different from that which we call Space (ShÃnyatÃ) . . . Space is not different from Form. Form is the same as Space; Space is the same as Form. And so with the other Skandhas, whether VedanÃ, or SanjÃa, or SanskÃra or VijÃana they are each the same as their opposite." (Book of Sin-king or the "Heart SÃtra." Chinese translation of the MahÃ-PrajÃÃ-PÃramitÃ-Hridaya-SÃtra; chapter on the "Avalokiteshvara," or Manifested Buddha.)
So that, the Ãryan and Tibetan or Arhat doctrines agree perfectly in substance, differing but in names given and the way of putting it, a distinction resulting from the fact that the VedÃntin BrÃhmans believe in Parabrahman, a deific power, impersonal though it may be, while the Buddhists entirely reject it."
.......
"Were our Orientalists to know more of them, and compare the ancient Babylonian Bel or Baal worship with the rites of the Bhons, they would find an undeniable connection between the two. It is out of the question to begin an argument here to prove the origin of the aborigines of Tibet as connected with one of the three great races which superseded each other in Babylonia, whether we call them the Akkadians (invented by F. Lenormant), or the primitive Turanians, Chaldees and Assyrians. Be it as it may, there is reason to call the Trans-HimÃlayan esoteric doctrine ChaldÃo-Tibetan. And, when we remember that the Vedas came-agreeably to all traditions-from the Mansarova Lake in Tibet, and the BrÃhmans themselves from the far north, we are justified in looking on the esoteric doctrines of every people who once had or still have them, as having proceeded from one and the same source, and to thus call it the "Ãryan-ChaldÃo-Tibetan" doctrine, or Universal Wisdom Religion. "Seek for the Lost Word among the hierophants of Tartary, China and Tibet," was the advice of Swedenborg, the seer."
http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/NotesOnSomeAryanArhatEsotericTenets.htm
I thought, that it might be helpful, while we look at the Eternity, not forgetting the Boddhisatva vows and fall like a Pratekya Buddhist down into spiritual selfishness.
M. Sufilight
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
