Theos-Talk Archives (February 2012 Message tt00116)

Morten, 

 ÂThanks for the Advaita Url you proviidedÂI much enjoyed reading the informative contents, isn't the web a cornucopia?  

John 



----- Original Message -----


From: "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@fGSl2rMBDzozAvhdqjxS_uzMuNVLbEzWU4JjB0Pnn6WkZlYwo-jriHUQBOH7uqY6wOmriJqPbirUDLZepHRtoYn0.yahoo.invalid> 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 5:29:03 AM 
Subject: Re: theos-talk Re: Mahatmas and Buddhism 

 




Dear Jake and friends 

My views are: 

I do not disagree that much in what you wrote Jake. 
But I hesitate with regard to the following view... 

Jake you wrote: 
"Sankara and Theosophy says there is a Real Self behind it all." 

M. Sufilight says: 
I think this is a mistaken opinion. 
Do you have a quote or two showing this. There are several quotes showing the opposite. The Secret Doctrine is one of the books - when we talk about "theosophy" as a loose term. 

Sankaras doctrines on Adwaita Vedanta says: Atma = Brahman, and that Brahman or Nirguna Brahman is Neti, Neti (not this, not that). (Try the Adwaita Vedanta Home Page - http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad-phil.html ) 

And the Theosophical Society was in 1875-1891 absolutely non-sectarian, - and did therefore not promote any doctrines on behalf of the members. (See http://www.teozofija.info/tsmembers/Rules_1890.htm or the Preamble from 1875 - http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/gfkforum/ourdir.htm#Preamble - or "The Key to Theosophy", p. 3-4 and p. 19-20 - 2nd ed. 1890 - remember to use the proper edition - http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm ) 
"Theosophy" was a loose term for any hypothesis about the meaning of life and its truth - with altruism at its core. Later it has - in some groups and organisations - become a sectarian doctrine promoted on behalf of members of theosophical groups. And where each group and organisation have their own version of what "Theosophy" is. 

CONSTITUTION AND RULES OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY 
"The Theosophical Society is absolutely unsectarian" 
"ARTICLE XIII 
Offences 

1. Any Fellow who shall in any way attempt to involve the Society In political disputes shall be immediately expelled. 

2. No Fellow, Officer, or Council of the Theosophical Society, or of any Section or Branch thereof, shall promulgate or maintain any doctrines being that advanced, or advocated by the Society." 
http://www.teozofija.info/tsmembers/Rules_1890.htm 

I find the above to be important, when we seek to avoid sectarian behavior. 
Those members of various Theosophical groups and organisations who find the above quote aught to be omitted from the Constitution and Rules in their own Theosophical group or organisation - are wholeheartedly welcome to tell me and others why this is important to do? 
Why has almost all later theosophical groups or organisations deleted the above passages in the Constitution and Rules for their own Theosophical group or organisation? Are they unimportant? 
I think not. 

I suggest: 
Let us promote an Absolutely Non-sectarian activity whether it be a therosophical group or organisation - or - a theosophical or theosophically related forum etc. etc. 
If you my dear reader oppose this idea - I would wholeheartedly welcome you to tell me and other readers why? 

M. Sufilight 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Mark Jaqua 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 4:12 PM 
Subject: theos-talk Re: Mahatmas and Buddhism 

Perry writes: >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.< 

I don't know Buddhist philosophy, but the original Theosophical idea is that Theosophy comes from a superior and the same source that Buddhism originally did, and that Buddhism as it now is, is exoteric and corrupted to a degree - but the Least corrupted of the major religions. 
Blavatsky says that Sankara _was_ the same individuality as Buddha [1] (in a rather complex new incarnation - References below) and according to Sinnett in "Esoteric Buddhism" Buddha came again as Sankara 50 years later in order to correct some mistakes or misconceptions left behind. [2] I don't know of anywhere that Blavatsky later corrected this statement. The exoteric Buddhists say there is "no self", while Sankara and Theosophy says there is a Real Self behind it all. [3] The Mahatmas say that the "heresy of Individuality" has reference only to the shell [4], or lower personality, with an relatively immortal Real Self, or reincarnating Ego, or monad behind it. Ultimately and philosophically though, in the face of the great All, nothing is immortal - but practically we have a permanent part of ourself to rely upon in our existence. 

[1] BCW, v 14, pp. 389-90; [2] "Esoteric Buddhism," Sinnett, 5th ed., pp. 175-6, also "The Buddhism of H.P. Blavatsky," H.J. Spierenburg, Pt. Loma Publications, 1991, pp. 78-79; [3] See Shankara's "Essence of the Teaching," "Vakya Sudha," or "Bala Bodhani," Johnston's translation of the English title on scribd.com, or "Theosophy" mag, July, 1897 at theosociety.org ; [4] MLs, T.U.P. p. 175 
- jake j. 

-------------------------- 
>From: "plcoles1" < plcoles1@rlbrnYd8OeUANRfhsy28RiqMitKDkPzwEuJT4Zw3uWBfA4h1T_Fu0fsifGhsBkscTiswoPlcwAVwsAiCpM5m.yahoo.invalid > 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 8:15:57 PM 
Subject: theos-talk Mahatmas and Buddhism 

>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] 

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




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