Theos-Talk Archives (February 2012 Message tt00109)

Dear M.Sufiight and John, thank-you to both of you for your very thought provoking replies, I feel like I can't rely do justice to your postings as they both gave me a  lot of food for thought and some things to chew over and investigate, I will be going back over both of them and meditating on what you said, so thank-you again.

My impressions always were that the order the Mahatmas belonged to was something outside of the orthodox Buddhist system, although they do speak in many parts of their letters as though they are exoteric Buddhists and seem to have had close associations with the exoteric Tibetan Buddhist orders they themselves hold to their esoteric Buddhist doctrines and that of the "Wisdom Religion".

I have doing a course at the local Tibetan Buddhist centre and it has been interesting and challenging studying it from within and up close so to speak, as so much of it is very different to the theosophical teachings although their is much that I resonate deeply with, a lot I can only take metaphorically and it did make me think, wow how can the Mahatmas teachings be reconciled with some of these (that to me seem) rather dogmatic and simplistic, and I say this with due respect to this tradition, which is one that I believe contains many deeply profound teachings and noble practices. 

As you both said the esoteric keys and the synthetic approach shows us the underlying truth of these different traditions when looked at esoterically.

Just as an aside I quite liked this quote from Swami Vivekananda in a speech given to the World Parliament of Religion in 1893:

"The Buddhists or the Jains do not depend upon God; but the whole force of their religion is directed to the great central truth in every religion, to evolve a God out of man. They have not seen the Father, but they have seen the Son. And he that hath seen the Son bath seen the Father also.

This, brethren, is a short sketch of the religious ideas of the Hindus. The Hindu may have failed to carry out all his plans, but if there is ever to be a universal religion, it must be one which will have no location in place or time; which will be infinite like the God it will preach, and whose sun will shine upon the followers of Krishna and of Christ, on saints and sinners alike; which will not be Brahminic or Buddhistic, Christian or Mohammedan, but the sum total of all these. and still have infinite space for development; which in its catholicity will embrace in infinite arms, and find a place for, every human being from the lowest grovelling savage, not far removed from the brute, to the highest man towering by the virtues of his head and heart almost above humanity, making society stand in awe of him and doubt his human nature. It will be a religion which will have no place for persecution or intolerance in its polity, which will recognize divinity in every man and woman, and whose whole scope, whose whole force, will be centered in aiding humanity to realize its own true, divine nature."

http://audio.theuniversalwisdom.org/paper_on_hinduism_vivekananda.mp3

With thanks,

Perry






--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Augoeides-222@... wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Perry, 
> 
>    Hi, your question are the regular arrivals of all who seek truth in their quest. I recommend reading  The M andukya Upanishad  Madame Blavatsky throuhout her S.D. uses the framework of the M andukya as the basic outline for the S.D. and ana logizes it with geometric forms. Basically there are "3"states of our consciousness that in reality derive from the Non-dual singularity of primordial original Nature (Being), the three are but the simu ltaneous and individualized coexistant projective stages of "awareness" The Unity of Three which is within the U nity of One and manisfests as the Lila (Leela), The Game or "sport" of the Absolute Primordial Beingness as primordial original Consciousness. Atma as defined by Gaudapada means "The Truth of Self" ( as primordial Non-Dual Absolute ). Monad is a Unit, a singularity, (of unit of awareness( not an e go)  having means fo r exten sion when manisfestation of the universe(s) is of activty. Svabhava is defined by Gaudapada as "Nature", Madame Blavatsky rely's on N ature as bedrock of S.D. exegesis.  The Teaching of the Buddha teaches there is no "abiding" self to be found as the underlying basis for the incarnative persona's because all objects of perception perceived in the projected  universe  is impermanent and possesses not O riginal  Nature being transient "created"compound aggregates of the secondary forms of matter and energy assem bled and maintained in the relative reality within the mayavic space wherein consciousness is " veiled" of primordial awareness for the desired result of obtaining the illlusionary perception of dualism in all forms and variations and differentiations brought about by our own primordial self-nature for the participation as "Units of Awareness of the Non-dual P rimordial in the Game or "Play of life" in it's cyclic manisfestations.   
> 
> 
> 
> The Buddhist indicate as does the Bhagavad Gita and many other primary origins that what is "anathema" as you state is the id ea  ( postulated as an automaticy of the universal collective conditioned mind)  that our "e go" (our persona and personality that is generated each time we are incarnate by the karmic aggregates, our parents, our peers, our culture, our  inherited genetics, and our experience (  the bedrock of partipation in Lila (Leela)) all collectively as the assembled composition of our egoic "possessive" self are not "SELF" itself but only a Non-abiding composition ( as Blavatsky teaches for the Personal Economy of the Beings Constitution  ) of the 5 principles th at deconstruct when out car nal form ends, the physical, vital, emotional, desire and mind. The Buddhic and Atm a 
> are primordial relative to the Absolute. 
> 
> 
> 
>    What I have read in the S.D. is that the Mahatma's through described as "Buddhists" and who Blavatsky indicated them to have presenced themsleves, at times, on certain occasions in the company of regular buddhist Tibetan orders such as the Gelupta, they are not of that order or most others that we are familiar too. She maintains even when they presence and congregate at times with regular Tibetan Orders they remained "aloft" of them, tho ugh in cordial brotherliness. I in my personal reading of Blavatsky works have never been lead to believe they were ord ainedin the regularily recognized Buddhist Mahayana or Hinayana orders. There is a standing tradition in Inida that there are even today two Primordial M hatma's in India who are perpetually present throughout the entire Manvartaric cycle, it is very obscure but it is a tradition. I often wondered if that is the true origin veiled from our cognizence. One is name "Devapi Mahatma". 
> 
> 
> 
> Â Â  About residuals of the incarnative pilgrimage, the discarded disassembled sheaves and kosas's that previously where integral to the economys. Blavatsky as most others teach that they have not true reality collectivly or individually and are impermanent create formations and aggregates that have only one "habitation" ( one should always ask oneself "what is the "habitation" of that object of discernment?) , that of the secondary projected matter, en ergy , space and time universe. even the postulated heavens and hells of speculative conditioned minds that were incorproated into religious theologys cannot violate senior laws of Nature a nd must accomplish the "karma" in it's proscribed "habitation". They , like the ego's in the incarnate human persona are secondary expedient mean created as impermanent vehicles that are temporal and not eternal original primordial Nature as taught by the Mahatma's, Blavatsky, the Ancient Upanishad and other texts and represent dualist aggregations, impermanent. They all are mayavic, when the Pralaya resolves all that is only US and IT ARE. 
> 
> 
> 
> Â Â  Bhakti is served by the idea of the heavens and hells, meaning for those whose presentment of accumulation and aggragates mediate their ideal paths the Non-dual is not forthem in the current mayavic moment of experience. 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Madame Blavatsky in her works mentioned a Greek Adept, a Hungarian Adept , Count Racozy, but understand this: All the Superior Primordial laws of Nature Transcendently oversee and are projectively are emanation that fill all SPACE for th experiance of "receptivity" of the realms of differentiated consci ousness,  who, in accordance to merit and stage  transduce into outward conveyances to residents of the material worlds. Absolutes are only obtainable in the Absolute. Perfection is only Habitate of Absolute. Perfect Truth has only one Residence. Error is found in only one type of habitation, the projected secondary realitys of matter, energy , space and time.  "Pi" is never the perfect "circle of unity", by is an infinite spiral. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find out Where You Are. Find out WHO You Are, See Unity as your philosophy. 
> 
> John 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> 
> From: "plcoles1" <plcoles1@...> 
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 8:15:57 PM 
> Subject: theos-talk Mahatmas and Buddhism 
> 
> Â  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Everyone, well it's been a while since posting here,I hope you are all doing well! 
> 
> My reason for posting is that I have been doing a lot of head scratching over the following issue and would be interested to hear other theosophists opinions. 
> 
> It is regarding the relationship between the Universal Wisdom Religion (Theosophy) taught in theosophical writings and Exoteric Buddhism and the Mahatmas relationship to Buddhism. 
> 
> I realise David Reigle has written about this subject and I am slowly going through his book "Blavatsky's Secret Books" at the moment, trying to piece things together with my very limited brain and knowledge. 
> 
> The Mahatmas claim to be Buddhist and yet they speak of Atma or Monad as fundamental in their teachings and yet these are anathema to Buddhism. 
> 
> My question is to what extent can they claim to be truly Buddhists of the Yellow Cap or Gelukpa order and yet teach the doctrine of Atma and Svabhava, obviously there would have been a serious conflict here for them being members of that order while at the same time holding to the doctrines of Svabavah and Atma, also the teachings on after death states and reincarnation are quite different i.e. rebirth into literal hells for long,long periods and rebirth into insect and animal forms. 
> 
> Also while it is mentioned in the writings of HPB that there are chelas from different schools of philosophy under these same teachers i.e KH and M , is there any mention of Adepts who are not Buddhist ? 
> 
> I am interested to hear what other students may think on this point. 
> 
> Cheers, 
> 
> Perry 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>