Theos-Talk Archives (August 2012 Message tt00034)

Kind regards MKR, for the information in this post below...

Here are some thoughts for us on avatars, Krishna, the Christ and Jesus also. JPC. 
 


Buddha? He expressed perfectly the significance of light in matter, of the intelligence principle as found in form, and was the Avatar Who carried in Himself the fully ripened seeds of the past solar system. EP2 278. 
 
It might be of interest here to note that Christ was the first of our earth humanity to achieve the goal, whereas the Buddha was the last of the moon chain humanity to do so. As far as the development of these two sons of God was concerned, so rapid was the development of the Christ that in Atlantean days He found Himself upon the Path of Probation as did also the Buddha. EP2 210. 


An avatar is a descent from on high upon earth of the Deity in some manifest shape. IU2 260. 


?avatar, like the Messiah of the Jews... IU2 259. 


This was made possible by the Christ as the Avatar, working in cooperation with the Master Jesus. DINA2 406. 


And thus it is that not only a Buddha, a Shankarâchârya, or a Jesus can be said to animate several persons at one and the same time, but even the principles of a high Adept may be animating the outward tabernacles of common mortals. SD3 372


Avatar only makes its appearance under a peculiar series of cycles concerned with a group of Monads who were the most progressed and advanced at the opening of the mahamanvantara. As yet, there are not many progressed enough to do this triple work; the Buddha and nine others being the only Ones as yet remaining in touch with our particular planet in this particular manner. A few are as Christ is, and have the power to make a dual appearance. TCF 1194. 


Christ, Bacchus, Apollo, and the Hindu Christna, the incarnation of Vishnu, with whose first avatar this symbol of the fish originated. IU2 257. 


Avatar or incarnation. IU2 260. 


Christ? the leader of His people and "the Eldest in a great family of brothers" (Romans VIII, 29.) RC 156. 


It might be of interest here to note that Christ was the first of our earth humanity to achieve the goal, whereas the Buddha was the last of the moon chain humanity to do so. As far as the development of these two sons of God was concerned, so rapid was the development of the Christ that in Atlantean days He found Himself upon the Path of Probation as did also the Buddha. EP2 210. 


This was made possible by the Christ as the Avatar, working in cooperation with the Master Jesus. DINA2 406. 


And thus it is that not only a Buddha, a Shankarâchârya, or a Jesus can be said to animate several persons at one and the same time, but even the principles of a high Adept may be animating the outward tabernacles of common mortals. SD3 372


Avatar only makes its appearance under a peculiar series of cycles concerned with a group of Monads who were the most progressed and advanced at the opening of the mahamanvantara. As yet, there are not many progressed enough to do this triple work; the Buddha and nine others being the only Ones as yet remaining in touch with our particular planet in this particular manner. A few are as Christ is, and have the power to make a dual appearance. TCF 1194. 


The Buddha held office prior to the present World Teacher and upon his Illumination His place was taken by the Lord Maitreya whom the Occidentals call the Christ. TCF 214. 


He has been for two thousand years the supreme Head of the Church Invisible, the Spiritual Hierarchy, composed of disciples of all faiths. He recognizes and loves those who are not Christian but who retain their allegiance to Their Founders - the Buddha, Mohammed and others. He cares not what the faith is if the objective is love of God and of humanity. If men look for the Christ Who left His disciples centuries ago, they will fail to recognize the Christ Who is in process of returning. The Christ has no religious barriers in His consciousness. It matters not to Him of what faith a man may call himself. RC 60. 
 
Krishna and Christ are philosophically the same principle under its triple aspect of manifestation. In the Bhagavatgita we find Krishna calling himself indifferently Atman, the abstract Spirit, Kshetragna, the Higher or reincarnating Ego, and the Universal SELF, all names which, when transferred from the Universe to man, answer to Atma, Buddhi and Manas. 
 
The Christ Child is present in truth, and the human heart and mind are becoming aware of that fact; the goal for thousands everywhere is the demonstration of the Christ spirit, and the exemplification of a life conditioned by love and modeled upon that of Christ or Shri Krishna, his earlier incarnation. DINA2 270. 


 
 

> To: Theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> From: mkr777@6MQs5wwgdbsL63ZR-ScYREifhOHBYtWR__czeACUWO-5FJIVkig69x9ZEdtrRuas9mhWvgXmGw.yahoo.invalid
> Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 12:41:44 -0500
> Subject: theos-talk T Subba Rao's Explanation of Avatars
> 
> The doctrine of Avatar is well known in India. It is taken for granted.
> However, there is very little published information explaining the
> principles behind Avatara. There is a discussion by HPB in Secret
> Doctrine. T Subba Rao, the well known theosophist, addressed this issue in
> his lectures on Gita. It is a very comprehensive explanation of Avatar. It
> is quoted below for ready reference. Enjoy his excellent presentation.
> 
> ++++
> 
> Krshna is generally supposed to be an Avatar,
> This theory of Avatars plays a very important part
> in Hindu philosophy; and, unless it is properly
> understood, it is likely that great misconceptions
> will arise from the acceptance of the current views
> regarding this Avatar. It is generally supposed that
> Krshna is the Avatara of the one great personal God
> who exists in the cosmos. Of course those who hold
> this view make no attempt to explain how this one
> great personal God succeeded in setting up an
> intimate connection with the physical body of Krshna,
> constituted as the physical body of every man is, or
> even with a personality, or human individuality, that
> seems to be precisely similar to that of any other
> human being. And how are we to explain the theory
> of Avatars, as generally stated, with reference to the
> view of this particular Avatar to which I have
> referred ? This view is without any support. The
> Logos in itself is not the one personal God of the cos-
> mos. The great Parabrahmam behind it is indeed one
> and niramsha, undifferentiated and eternally existing,
> but that Parabrahmam can never manifest itself as any
> of these Avatars. It does, of course, manifest itself in
> a peculiar way as the whole cosmos, or rather as the
> supposed basis, or the one essence, on which the whole
> cosmos seems to be superimposed, the one foundation
> for every existence. But it can manifest itself in a
> manner approaching the conception of a personal God,
> only when it manifests itself as the Logos. If Avatars
> are possible at all, they can only be so with reference
> to the Logos, or Ishvara, and not by any means
> with reference to what I have called Parabrahmam.
> But still there remains the question, what is
> an Avatara. According to the general theory I
> have laid down, in the case of every man who
> becomes a Mukta there is a union with the Logos. It
> may be conceived, either as the soul being raised to
> the Logos or as the Logos descending from its high
> plane to associate itself with the soul. In the
> generality of cases, this association of the soul with
> the Logos is only completed after death the last
> death which that individual has to go through.
> 
> But in some special cases the Logos does descend
> to the plane of the soul and associate itself with the
> soul during the lifetime of the individual ; but these
> cases are very rare. In the case of such beings, while
> they still exist as ordinary men on the physical plane,
> instead of having for their soul merely the reflection
> of the Logos, they have the Logos itself. Such
> beings have appeared. Buddhists say that in the
> case of Buddha there was this permanent union, when
> he attained what they call Paranirvana nearly twenty
> years before the death of his physical body. Christians
> say that the Logos was made flesh, as it were, and
> was born as Christ as Jesus though the Christians
> do not go into a clear analysis of the propositions
> they lay down. There are, however, certain sections
> of Christians who take a more philosophical view of
> the question, and say that the divine Logos associated
> itself with the man named Jesus at some time during
> his career, and that it was only after that union that
> he began to perform his miracles and show his power
> as a great reformer and saviour of mankind.
> 
> Whether this union took place as a special case in
> the case of Jesus, or whether it was such a union as
> would take place in the case of every Mahatma or
> Maharishi when he becomes a Jivanmukta, we cannot
> say, unless we know a great deal more about him than
> what the Bible can teach us. In the case of Krshna
> the same question arises. Mahavishnu is a God, and
> is a representative of the Logos ; he is considered as
> the Logos by the majority of Hindus. From this it
> must not however be inferred that there is but one
> Logos in the cosmos, or even that but one form of
> Logos is possible in the cosmos. For the present I am
> only concerned with this form of the Logos, and it
> seems to be the foundation of the teachings we are
> considering. There are two views which you can
> take with reference to such human Avatars, as, for
> instance, Rama, Krshna, and Parashurama. Some
> Vaishnavites deny that Buddha was an Avatar
> of Vishnu. But that was an exceptional case and is
> very little understood by either Vaishnavites or
> Buddhists. Parashurama's Avatar will certainly be
> disputed by some writers. I believe that, looking
> at the terrible things he did, the Madhwas thought
> that, in the case of Parashurama, there was no
> real Avatar, but a mere overshadowing of the man
> by Mahavishnu. But, setting aside disputed cases,
> we have two undisputed human Avatars Rama and
> Krshna.
> 
> Take for instance the case of Krshna. In this case
> two views are possible. We may suppose that
> Krshna, as an individual, was a man who had been
> evoluting for millions of years, and had attained great
> spiritual perfection, and that in the course of his
> spiritual progress the Logos descended to him and
> associated itself with his soul. In that case it is not
> the Logos that manifested itself as Krshna, but
> Krshna who raised himself to the position of the
> Logos. In the case of a Mahatma who becomes a
> Jlvanmukta, it is his soul, as it were, that is trans-
> formed into the Logos. In the case of a Logos
> descending into a man, it does so, not chiefly by
> reason of that man's spiritual perfection, but for
> some ulterior purpose of its own for the benefit of
> humanity. In this case it is the Logos that descends
> to the plane of the soul and manifests its energy in
> and through the soul, and not the soul that ascends to
> the plane of the Logos.
> 
> Theoretically it is possible for us to entertain either
> of these two views. But there is one difficulty. If
> we are at liberty to call that man an Avatar who
> becomes a Jlvanmukta, we shall be obliged to call
> Shuka, Vasishtha, Durvasa and perhaps the whole
> number of the Maharishis, who have become Jivan-
> muktas, Avatars ; but they are not generally called
> Avatars. No doubt some great Rishis are enumerated
> in the list of Avatars, given for instance in the
> Bhagavat, but somehow no clear explanation is
> given for the fact that the ten Avataras ordinarily
> enumerated are looked upon as the Avatara of
> Mahavishnu, and the others as his manifestations,
> or beings in whom his light and knowledge were
> placed for the time being ; or, for some reason or
> other, these others are not supposed to be Avatars
> in the strict sense of the word. But, if these are not
> Avatars, then we shall have to suppose that Krshna
> and Rama are called Avatars, not because we have in
> them an instance of a soul that had become a
> Jivanmukta and so had become associated with the
> Logos, but because the Logos descended to the
> plane of the soul, and, associating itself with the
> soul, worked in and through it on the plane of
> humanity for some great thing that had to be
> done in the world. I believe this latter view will
> be found to be correct on examination. Our respect
> for Krshna need not in any way be lessened on that
> account. The real Krshna is not the man in and
> through whom the Logos appeared, but the Logos itself.
> Perhaps our respect will only be enhanced, when
> we see that this is the case of the Logos descending into
> a human being for the good of humanity. It is not
> encumbered with any particular individuality in such
> a case, and has perhaps greater power to exert itself
> for the purpose of doing good to humanity not
> merely for the purpose of doing good to one man, but
> for the purpose of saving millions.
> 
> There are two dark passages in the Mahabharata,
> which will be found very hard nuts for the advocates
> of the orthodox theory to crack. To begin with Rama.
> Suppose Rama was not the individual monad plus
> the Logos, but in some unaccountable manner the
> Logos made flesh. Then, when the physical body
> disappeared there should be nothing remaining but
> the Logos there should be no individual ego to follow
> its own course. That seems to be the inevitable
> result, if we are to accept the orthodox theory. But
> there is a statement made by Narada in the Lokapala
> Sabha Varnana, in the Mahabharata, in which he says
> speaking of the court of Yama, who is one of the
> Devas, that Dasaratha Rama was one of the individuals
> present there. Now, if the individual Rama was
> merely a maya not in the sense in which every
> human being is a maya but in a special sense -there
> is not the slightest reason why he should subsist after
> the purpose for which this maya garb was wanted
> was accomplished. It is stated in the Ramayana that
> the Logos went to its place of abode when Rama
> died, yet we find, in the Mahabharata, Dasaratha Rama
> mentioned, together with a number of other kings, as an
> individual present in Yamaloka, which, at the highest,
> takes us only up to devachan. This assertion becomes
> perfectly consistent with the theory I have laid down
> if that is properly understood. Rama was an indi-
> vidual, constituted like every other man ; probably he
> had had several incarnations before, and was destined,
> even after this one great incarnation, to have several
> subsequent births. When he appeared as Rama Avatar,
> it was not Rama's soul transformed into the Logos, or
> rather Rama himself as Jivanmukta, that did all the
> great deeds narrated in the Ramayana an a allegorical
> as it is but it was the Logos, or Mahavishnu, that
> descended to the plane of the soul and associated
> itself for the time being with a particular soul for the
> purpose of acting through it. Again, in the case of
> Krshna there is a similar difficulty to be encountered.
> Turn, for instance, to the end of the Mousala Parva in
> the Mahabharata, where you will find a curious passage.
> Speaking of Krshna 's death, the author says that the
> soul went to heaven which corresponds to devachan
> where it was received with due honours by all the
> Devas. Then it is said that Narayana departed from
> that place to his own place, Narayana being the
> symbol of the Logos. Immediately after, there
> follows a stanza describing the existence of Krshna
> in swargam, and further on we find that when
> Dharmaraja's soul went into swargam he found Krshna
> there. How are these two statements to be reconciled ?
> Unless we suppose that Narayan, whose energy and
> wisdom were manifested through the man Krshna, was
> a separate spiritual power manifesting itself for the
> time being through this individual, there is no solu-
> tion of the difficulty. Now, from these two statements
> we shall not be far wrong in inferring that the Avatars
> we are speaking of were the manifestations of one
> and the same power, the Logos, which the great Hindu
> writers of old called Mahavishnu. Who then is this
> Mahavishnu ? Why should this Logos in particular,
> if there are several other Logoi in the universe, take
> upon itself the care of humanity, and manifest itself
> in the form of various Avatars and further, is it
> possible for every other adept, after he becomes
> associated with the Logos, to descend as an Avatar
> in the same manner for the good of humanity ?
> 
> A clear discussion of these questions will lead us
> into considerations that go far down into the mys-
> teries of occult science, to explain which clearly I
> should have to take into account a number of theories
> that can only be communicated at the time
> of initiation. Possibly some light will be thrown
> upon the subject in the forthcoming Secret Doctrine,
> but it would be premature for me to discuss the
> question at this stage. It will be sufficient for me to
> say that this Mahavishnu seems to be the Dhyan
> Chohan that first appeared on this planet when
> human evolution commenced during this Kalpa, who
> set the evolutionary progress in motion, and whose
> duty it is to watch over the interests of mankind until
> the seven Manvantaras through which we are passing
> are over. It may be that this Logos itself was
> associated with a Jivanmiikta, or a great Mahatma
> of a former Kalpa. However that may be, it is a
> Logos, and as such only it is of importance to us at
> present. Perhaps in former Kalpas, of which there have
> been millions, that Logos might have associated itself
> with a series of Mahatmas, and all their individualities
> might have been subsisting in it; nevertheless it has
> a distinct individuality of its own, it is Ishvara, and
> it is only as a Logos in the abstract that we have
> to consider it for present purposes. This explanation,
> however, I have thought it necessary to give, for the
> purpose of enabling you to understand certain
> statements made by Krshna, which will not become
> intelligible unless read in connection with what I
> have said.
 		 	   		  

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